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

• Ana Washburn, a self-represented litigant and defendant, was involved in a legal dispute with Solar Villa Apartments, the plaintiff, over the termination of her rental agreement. The dispute led to the plaintiff obtaining a judgment for restitution against the defendant, which included an order for the defendant to pay prorated rent and costs totaling $159.50.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the metropolitan court's judgment for restitution in favor of Solar Villa Apartments against Ana Washburn.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the metropolitan court erred legally by disregarding her retaliation defense to the plaintiff's action for possession (para 1).
• Plaintiff: Failed to file a memorandum in opposition to the proposed disposition by the appellate court (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the metropolitan court legally erred in disregarding the defendant's retaliation defense to the plaintiff's action for possession.

Disposition

• The district court’s memorandum opinion and order and the metropolitan court judgment for restitution are reversed (para 3).
• The case is remanded to the metropolitan court for a hearing on and due consideration of the defendant's owner retaliation defense, including, if the retaliation defense has merit, whether the eviction proceedings should be stayed pending completion of the discriminatory practices investigation (para 3).

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Judge, authored the memorandum opinion, with Chief Judge Roderick T. Kennedy and Judge Linda M. Vanzi concurring. The appellate court decided to reverse and remand the case based on the defendant's unopposed memorandum supporting the proposed disposition, which argued that the lower court erred by not considering her retaliation defense. The appellate court found merit in this argument, leading to the reversal of the lower courts' decisions and remanding the case for further proceedings regarding the defendant's retaliation defense (paras 1-4).