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 the estate of Josephine A.G. Stevens, deceased. The petitioners, identified as Heirs, contested several orders by the district court related to the estate's probate process. Central to the dispute was the sale of the decedent's home by the personal representative, despite the Heirs having filed a lis pendens on the property. The Heirs sought to remove the personal representative and requested a stay pending appeal, which the district court denied.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Heirs: Argued that the personal representative should be removed for proceeding with the sale of the estate's property despite a lis pendens filed by them. They also contended that the personal representative violated statutory duties by marketing the property after a petition for her removal was filed and that they were entitled to a hearing before the denial of their petition to remove the personal representative. Additionally, they argued that the district court should have followed specific procedures for partition and private sale of the estate's property upon their request.
• Personal Representative: The summary does not provide specific arguments from the personal representative. However, it can be inferred that the personal representative and interested parties opposed the Heirs' petitions and arguments based on the district court's rulings and the appellate court's decision to affirm those rulings.

Legal Issues

• Whether the personal representative should have been removed for selling the estate's property despite a lis pendens filed by the Heirs.
• Whether the personal representative violated statutory duties by marketing the property after the Heirs filed a petition for her removal.
• Whether the Heirs were entitled to a hearing before their petition to remove the personal representative was denied.
• Whether the district court should have followed specific procedures for partition and private sale of the estate's property upon the Heirs' request.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions denying the Heirs' petition to remove the personal representative, their complaint for a private sale, and their request for a stay pending appeal.

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge concurring):
  The court explained that a lis pendens does not prevent the sale of property but merely makes it riskier for the buyer, thus the personal representative did not violate her duties by selling the property despite the lis pendens (para 3).
  The court found no evidence that the personal representative marketed the property after the petition for her removal was filed, noting that the contract to sell the property was executed months before the petition (para 4).
  The court held that not every motion requires a hearing, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling on the petition to remove the personal representative without a hearing, especially considering the lack of merit in the Heirs' arguments (para 5).
  The court supported the district court's decision not to follow the procedures outlined in NMSA 1978, Sections 42-5-1 to -7 for partition and private sale of the estate's property, as the complaint was filed late in the probate proceedings and as part of the ongoing case, not as a separate lawsuit (para 6).