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 an appeal from a district court's order dismissing the Defendants' appeal from an on-record metropolitan court judgment of restitution under the Owner-Residents Relations Act. The Defendants failed to record the bench trial in metropolitan court, leading to the district court's inability to review the record on appeal.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County: The district court dismissed Defendants' appeal due to the absence of a recorded bench trial in metropolitan court, which was necessary for review (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants-Appellants: Argued that they were denied due process in the metropolitan court on the merits, in the district court when it dismissed their appeal, and in the Court of Appeals because it proposed to affirm the district court’s dismissal (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendants were denied due process in the metropolitan court, the district court, and the Court of Appeals.
• Whether the Defendants' failure to record the bench trial in metropolitan court precludes their appeal to the district court.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Defendants’ appeal from the metropolitan court on-record judgment of restitution (para 8).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Cynthia A. Fry, Michael E. Vigil, and Timothy L. Garcia, unanimously affirmed the district court's decision. The Court found that the Defendants did not address the analysis or authorities set forth in the calendar notice, which supported the affirmance of the district court's decision (para 2-3). The Court also noted that the Defendants' failure to comply with Supreme Court Rules requiring them to request a transcript of the metropolitan court proceedings resulted in the deprivation of their appeal, not due to any unconstitutional rules but due to their own failure to comply (para 3). Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the Defendants were properly notified of their obligation to record the proceedings and the consequences of not doing so, as per the metropolitan court rules (para 6). The Court concluded that the Defendants' failure to make a record of the metropolitan court trial precluded appeal to the district court, affirming the district court's dismissal of the appeal (para 7).