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 case involves a dispute between Jerald Warwick, the Plaintiff-Appellee, and Benard Warwick, the Defendant-Appellant, over the sale of a parcel of real estate. The inability of the parties to agree on the sale led to the district court's decision to appoint three commissioners to determine if the parcel could be partitioned. The Doña Ana Planning Department indicated that the parcel is too small to be divided.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY, James T. Martin, District Judge: The district court issued an order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Jerald Warwick and contemplated further action regarding the partition or sale of the real estate parcel in question.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the parcel of real estate in question is too small to be divided and requested additional time to supply documentation to support this assertion.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff-Appellee was a final order eligible for appeal.
• Whether the Defendant-Appellant should be granted additional time to supply documentation regarding the divisibility of the real estate parcel.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed due to the lack of a final order from the district court regarding the disposition of the real property.
• The Defendant-Appellant's request for additional time to supply documentation was denied.

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring): The Court of Appeals determined that the district court's order was not final because it contemplated further action, specifically the appointment of three commissioners to assess the possibility of partitioning the real estate parcel. The Court of Appeals also noted that it does not serve as a trier of fact and that the district court is in a better position to evaluate the evidence regarding the parcel's divisibility. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the request for additional time to submit documentation was denied, emphasizing the appellate court's role and the necessity of a final order for appealability.