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 Plaintiffs, Nate Sims and Jeff Sims, and the Defendant, John Barncastle, regarding the termination of a month-to-month rental agreement. The Plaintiffs provided the Defendant with a written notice of termination, which the Defendant contested, arguing that the notice was invalid because it was signed by Claire Sims, who he claimed was not legally designated as the Plaintiffs' agent. The dispute led to a legal proceeding to obtain a writ of restitution to remove the Defendant from the property.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Denise Barela Shepherd, District Judge: Affirmed the metropolitan court's order issuing a writ of restitution.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellees: Argued that they had properly terminated the rental agreement by providing the Defendant with a written notice at least thirty days prior to the termination, as required by the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act (UORRA). They also contended that Claire Sims was legally designated as their agent and property manager, which was supported by evidence including a durable power of attorney, the rental agreement, and a text message acknowledgment from the Defendant.
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the notice of termination was legally invalid because Claire Sims was not their legal agent, nor was he ever notified of her being their agent. The Defendant also raised issues of judicial bias in the metropolitan court, arguing that the judge exhibited bias against him through various actions during the proceedings.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiffs provided the Defendant with a legally valid written notice of termination of the rental agreement as required by UORRA.
• Whether the district court erred in its findings regarding the alleged judicial bias of the metropolitan court judge.
• Whether the metropolitan court judge erred in changing her ruling after the Defendant indicated his intention to appeal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order affirming the metropolitan court's writ of restitution.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Henry M. Bohnhoff concurring, found that the evidence presented at the metropolitan court hearing was sufficient to establish that the Defendant received proper notice of termination under UORRA. The Court rejected the Defendant's contention that the Plaintiffs were required to introduce the power of attorney into evidence or specifically apprise him of their designated agent. The Court also addressed the Defendant's claims of judicial bias, stating that these claims were not preserved for appellate review because they were not raised in the trial court. Furthermore, the Court found no error in the metropolitan court judge's decision-making process or her handling of the Defendant's appeal indication. The Court concluded that the district court did not err in its decisions and affirmed the order for a writ of restitution (paras 2-12).