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 over rent due, where the Plaintiff-Appellee, a property management company, brought suit against the Defendant-Appellant in metropolitan court. The Defendant appealed the metropolitan court's decision to the district court, which dismissed his appeal. The core of the dispute on appeal was the Plaintiff's standing to sue for rent due.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Valerie A. Huling, District Judge, March 29, 2012: The district court dismissed the Defendant's appeal from a metropolitan court judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on a complaint for rent due.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the Plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit in the metropolitan court and contended that the appellate court could review the case based solely on the pleadings, despite the absence of a complete record from the metropolitan court proceedings.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff had standing to bring suit in the metropolitan court.
• Whether the appellate court can review the case based solely on the pleadings in the absence of a complete record from the metropolitan court proceedings.

Disposition

• The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Defendant's appeal.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Cynthia A. Fry, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring): The appellate court held that the Defendant's issue regarding the Plaintiff's standing was unreviewable due to the lack of a preserved record from the metropolitan court hearing. The court emphasized the requirement for parties to request a recording of the proceedings to preserve the record, which was not done in this case. The Defendant's argument to limit the review to the pleadings was rejected as it would unfairly ignore any evidence presented at the hearing in favor of the Plaintiff. The court also noted, although it was unnecessary for the resolution of the appeal, that the record indicated the Plaintiff is the successor-in-interest of the original lessor, suggesting they had standing to sue. The appellate court's decision was based on the principle that an incomplete record on appeal leads to the presumption that the trial court's ruling is supported by evidence.