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 Estate of Perry R. Trujillo appealed a district court's order regarding the distribution of certain property and tangible personal property possessed by the Decedent at the time of his death. The appeal involved claims of promissory estoppel related to an agreement between the Decedent and his brothers, Phillip Trujillo Jr. and Mark Trujillo, concerning the distribution of water rights owned by their father, and a presumption of ownership in favor of the Estate for certain tangible personal property.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant (The Estate of Perry R. Trujillo): Argued that the district court erred by not applying promissory estoppel to enforce an agreement between the Decedent and his brothers regarding the distribution of water rights and by not applying a presumption of ownership for certain tangible personal property in the Decedent's possession at the time of his death.
• Respondents-Appellees (Phillip Trujillo and Mark Trujillo): Contended that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the Order as it was not final and that the Estate's appeal was effectively interlocutory without following proper procedure.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Order from the district court is final and appealable.
• Whether the district court erred by declining to rule on the Estate’s promissory estoppel claim due to its absence from the pretrial order.
• Whether the district court erred by not presuming ownership of certain tangible personal property in favor of the Estate.
• Whether the Estate's remaining arguments regarding the 2002 agreement, preclusion, and personal jurisdiction over the Trust were preserved for appeal.

Disposition

• The appellate court affirmed the district court's findings, conclusions, and order.

Reasons

• Finality of the Order: The appellate court found the Order to be final and appealable, as it disposed of all matters raised by the Estate, including the distribution of water rights and tangible personal property (paras 2-5).
  Promissory Estoppel Claim: The court held that the Estate's promissory estoppel claim was not preserved for appeal because it was absent from the pretrial order, and no objection or motion to modify the pretrial order was made by the Estate (paras 6-8).
  Presumption of Ownership: The court concluded that the Estate did not demonstrate prejudice from the lack of a presumption of ownership for the tangible personal property, noting that presumptions have little mandatory effect on a judge's decision in bench trials (paras 9-10).
  Remaining Arguments: The court determined that the Estate's arguments regarding the 2002 agreement, preclusion, and personal jurisdiction over the Trust were not preserved for appeal due to a lack of specific invocation of a ruling or decision by the trial court on these issues (paras 11-20).