AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff, in his capacities as both the third successor trustee and beneficiary of the Seton Family Trust Contract, sought to set aside a district court's order from March 31, 2011, that dismissed his case entirely. The dismissal was part of a long-standing legal battle involving allegations of probate fraud and attorney collusion or deceit related to the misrepresentation by Defendants to the first successor trustee and beneficiaries about the transferability of a Trust asset. The Plaintiff aimed to recover an asset for the Trust to be distributed to himself as a beneficiary (paras 8-9, 11).

Procedural History

• District Court, March 31, 2011: Dismissed the case in its entirety.
• District Court, June 7, 2016: Denied Plaintiff's Rule 1-060 NMRA motions to set aside the March 31, 2011, order (para 3).
• District Court, July 30, 2010: Denied Plaintiff's motion to intervene as Trustee on behalf of the Trust, concluding it was untimely and that equity favored dismissal due to Plaintiff's failure to secure counsel (para 12).
• District Court, October 29, 2010: Denied Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the July 30, 2010, order (para 12).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the district court's June 7, 2016, order was not final and appealable because it did not consider his pending Rule 1-059(E) NMRA motions to reconsider the March 31, 2011, order. Alleged Defendants engaged in probate fraud and attorney collusion or deceit, violating specific statutes, and sought to recover an asset for the Trust (paras 3, 8-9).
• Defendant Catron: Contended that the Rule 1-060(B)(6) motion was withdrawn from the record, and thus, the district court only needed to consider the Rule 1-059(E) motions. Argued that the order appealed from was a final, appealable order (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's June 7, 2016, order denying Plaintiff's Rule 1-060 NMRA motions to set aside the March 31, 2011, order was a final, appealable order.
• Whether the motions to reconsider were properly denied.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying Plaintiff's motion to reconsider (para 16).

Reasons

• M. Monica Zamora, Chief Judge; J. Miles Hanisee, Judge; Briana H. Zamora, Judge: The panel concluded that the district court's order was final and appealable, as it effectively disposed of Plaintiff's arguments despite referencing Rule 1-060. The court applied a practical construction to the order's finality and found that the Plaintiff's motions to reconsider were properly denied based on the district court's discretion and the lack of new legal or factual justification from the Plaintiff. The panel also noted that Plaintiff's remaining issues, including alleged errors in prior probate matters and the interpretation of the Trust, were without merit as the appellate court is not a fact-finding body and lacks jurisdiction to review district court errors in those matters (paras 3-15).