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 between the owners of a property and their resident over the unlawful diminution of services, specifically the shutting off of the resident's water services due to unpaid bills. The owners, after a judgment for restitution was issued against the resident for unpaid rent and property damage, directed the utility provider to shut off the resident's water services. The resident, still in possession of the premises and having paid the past due amount after the services were shut off, filed a counterclaim for unlawful diminution of services (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• Magistrate Court, March 9, 2021: Judgment for restitution in favor of the owners and issued a corresponding writ of restitution (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Resident: Argued that the district court erred in denying her counterclaim for unlawful diminution of services, contending that the court misinterpreted NMSA 1978, Section 47-8-36(A)(4) of the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act (UORRA) (para 1).
• Owners: Declined to participate in the appeal (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in concluding that a "court order" permitted owners to end water services (para 7).
• Whether the district court misinterpreted Section 47-8-36(A)(4)’s duty exemption clause (para 15).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s judgment denying the resident's claim for unlawful diminution of services and remanded for further proceedings on this issue (para 25).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Kristina Bogardus writing the opinion, and Judges Gerald E. Baca and Katherine A. Wray concurring, found that the district court erred in its interpretation of the UORRA. Specifically, the court held that a judgment for restitution and a writ of restitution do not constitute a "court order" under Section 47-8-36(A)(4), which would permit the owners to direct the utility provider to shut off water services. The court also found that the district court misinterpreted the duty exemption clause of Section 47-8-36(A)(4), which does not permit owners to direct the utility provider to end water services due to nonpayment by the resident. The court emphasized that the UORRA aims to prevent owners from taking possession recovery actions without proper legal authorization and that the district court's interpretation would undermine this goal (paras 6-24).