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 an appeal by the Defendant-Appellant from a district court order dismissing her appeal of a metropolitan court judgment. The core issue pertains to the necessity of an audio transcript of the trial for supporting an appeal from the metropolitan court to the district court. The Defendant-Appellant argued against the requirement, suggesting that the district court could hear her appeal without reference to the trial court proceedings, essentially appealing de novo.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Carl J. Butkus, District Judge: Dismissed the Defendant-Appellant's appeal due to the absence of a recorded bench trial in the metropolitan court.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in determining that an audio transcript of the trial was necessary to support an appeal from the metropolitan court to the district court. Contended that the district court could hear her appeal without reference to the trial court proceedings, implying a de novo appeal. Additionally, argued that the Plaintiff did not comply with the requirement to notify the Defendant-Appellant of the right to record the proceedings, which should allow for a de novo appeal in district court despite the lack of a trial record (paras 2, 5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in determining that an audio transcript of the trial was necessary to support an appeal from the metropolitan court to the district court.
• Whether the Plaintiff's failure to notify the Defendant-Appellant of the right to record the proceedings should allow for a de novo appeal in district court despite the lack of a trial record.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Defendant-Appellant's appeal.

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, with JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, and CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge concurring, provided the reasoning for the court's decision. The court held that the New Mexico Constitution and legislative provisions require that appeals from the metropolitan court to the district court be on record, except where the law provides otherwise. Since the metropolitan court is considered a "court of record" for civil appeals, the absence of a trial record precludes an appeal to the district court. The court also rejected the Defendant-Appellant's argument that the Plaintiff's failure to notify her of the right to record the proceedings waived the requirement for a trial record on appeal. The court emphasized that information regarding the obligation to record proceedings was available in the metropolitan court rules, and the lack of a record bars review because it prevents the appellate court from assessing the evidence presented at trial. The court further disagreed with the Defendant-Appellant's assertion that the issue before the metropolitan court was a purely legal question that could be reviewed de novo without a trial record, noting that evidence beyond the contract terms was likely considered at trial (paras 1-9).