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 revolves around the Appellant's challenge to a house rule implemented by the Appellee, prohibiting the storage or use of propane or liquid petroleum gas containers exceeding a certain size within a seniors community. The Appellant contends that this rule constitutes a substantial modification of his agreement with the Appellee.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, February 10, 2017: The court issued a corrected order granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the house rule limiting the size of propane or liquid petroleum gas containers represents a substantial modification of the bargain between him and the Appellee, making it unenforceable under the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act.
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the house rule prohibiting the storage or use of propane or liquid petroleum gas containers exceeding a specific size is enforceable under the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Appellee.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, J. (J. Miles Hanisee, J., and Julie J. Vargas, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals was not persuaded by the Appellant's arguments, which largely reiterated points from his docketing statement without presenting new persuasive authority. The Appellant failed to provide sufficient legal basis to support his claim that the house rule constituted a substantial modification of his bargain with the Appellee. The court applied de novo review to the district court's grant of summary judgment and, finding no error in the district court's ruling, affirmed the decision (paras 1-3).