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 petitioner, Jeannette Koukol, filed a verified petition for an order of protection from domestic abuse against Keith Bounds, detailing an incident that occurred on September 16, 2009. Koukol alleged Bounds physically assaulted her, causing her to fear for her life. Additionally, Koukol filed a motion for restorative and compensatory damages, including for an earlier incident on July 9, 2009, which was not initially mentioned in the protection order petition but was included in the motion for damages. This earlier incident allegedly resulted in a severe injury to Koukol's right wrist, affecting her employment.

Procedural History

• District Court of Grant County, J. C. Robinson, District Judge: Issued a temporary order of protection and scheduled a hearing to determine whether to extend the order. Later, the court declined to consider Koukol's pleadings amended to include the July 9, 2009, incident for damages, leading to Koukol's appeal.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the pleadings should be considered amended to conform to the evidence presented, including the July 9, 2009, incident, under Rule 1-015(B) NMRA. Koukol contended that the incident was tried by the implied consent of the parties and thus should be included in the pleadings for damages.
• Respondent-Appellee: Objected to the inclusion of the July 9, 2009, incident in the motion for damages, arguing it was not properly pled in the original petition for an order of protection. Bounds also objected to the continuance of the damages hearing as it related to the July 9 incident and moved to dismiss Koukol's claims related to this incident for insufficiency of the evidence and lack of proper pleading.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in refusing to consider the petitioner's pleadings amended to include the alleged July 9, 2009, incident of domestic abuse under Rule 1-015(B) NMRA.
• Whether the respondent's actions constituted implied consent to trial the issues raised in the petitioner's motion for damages, including the July 9, 2009, incident.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court, denying Koukol's objections and refusing to consider her pleadings amended to include the July 9, 2009, incident for the purpose of awarding damages.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, J., and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, J., concurring): The court found that the respondent did not consent, either expressly or impliedly, to trial the July 9, 2009, incident as part of the motion for damages. The court noted that the respondent specifically objected to the inclusion of this incident at the hearings, and thus, Koukol's pleadings could not be considered amended under Rule 1-015(B) to include it. The court also observed that Koukol did not move to amend her petition to include the July 9 incident, and therefore, the issue was not preserved for review. The court concluded that without a motion to amend, the district court could not infer an amendment to include the July 9, 2009, incident and did not abuse its discretion in its ruling.