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 the appellant, Rosemary McDonald Torres, who appealed an order quashing a peremptory challenge to excuse the district judge and sanctioning her attorney. Approximately eight and a half years after judgment was entered in the case, the appellant filed a motion claiming she was an indispensable party who had not been included in the proceedings. The district court records, however, indicated that the appellant had participated in the case and was represented throughout the proceedings.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that she was not a party to the case below and was not represented by Mr. Hosford in the district court proceedings. She also claimed that she was an indispensable party who was not included in the proceedings and moved to excuse the district judge. Additionally, the appellant contended that there were no written documents indicating she was informed of a conflict of interest by her attorney and that the judgment did not award anything to her in her name.
• Appellees: The submissions of the appellees are not detailed in the decision.

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellant was a party to the case and fully participated in the proceedings.
• Whether the appellant was represented by Mr. Hosford and if there was a conflict of interest.
• Whether the judgment awarded anything to the appellant in her name.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the order of the district court quashing a peremptory challenge to excuse the district judge and sanctioning the appellant's attorney.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (Cynthia A. Fry, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring): The court found that the district court records showed the appellant participated and was represented throughout the proceedings. She was deposed, signed pleadings and documents, and her attorney conceded that she was served as a party defendant. The court held that the appellant was a party to the case and fully participated in the proceedings. Regarding the claim of a conflict of interest, the court noted that the appellant did not raise an objection in the district court based on this claim, and therefore, it was not preserved for appeal. The court also found no evidence of Mr. Hosford being involved with the case when it was handled by another attorney or that he actively represented conflicting interests. Lastly, the court addressed the appellant's claim regarding the judgment not awarding anything to her in her name, stating that the judgment clearly referred to both Pete Torres and Rosemary Torres, indicating that the judgment was awarded to both. Any dispute over the collection of the judgment was deemed to be between Pete and Rosemary Torres.