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 Plaintiff appealed a final judgment following a trial de novo, asserting errors by the district court related to the review of exhibits, consideration of a delay in payment for a contract, and the non-award of costs to him. The Plaintiff represented himself in the appeal and submitted a memorandum opposing the appellate court's proposed disposition, insisting on the thoroughness of his docketing statement and challenging the appellate court's review process.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Asserted that the district court erred by not reviewing his exhibits prior to trial, neglecting to consider a delay in payment of a contract, and not awarding him his costs. He also claimed that the appellate court failed to fully examine the evidence.
• Defendant-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by failing to review the Plaintiff's exhibits prior to trial.
• Whether the district court erred by neglecting to consider a delay in payment of a contract.
• Whether the district court erred by not awarding costs to the Plaintiff.

Disposition

• The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

Reasons

• DUFFY, Judge, HENDERSON, Judge, and YOHALEM, Judge, concurring: The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, remaining unpersuaded by the Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition to summary affirmance. The court highlighted the Plaintiff's failure to provide a concise, accurate statement of the case summarizing all facts material to a consideration of the issues presented, as required by Rule 12-208(D)(3) NMRA. The court also noted the Plaintiff's failure to identify how each issue was raised and preserved for review, and to provide authority that the district court did not follow. The appellate court emphasized its role in reviewing proceedings from the district court rather than re-trying the case or acting as an advocate for the parties. The Plaintiff's memorandum did not direct the court's attention to evidence received by the district court, arguments advanced before that court, or any controlling authority that the district court misapplied. The appellate court found no rule requiring the district court to review trial evidence before the commencement of the trial and noted the Plaintiff's failure to clarify how the issue of the fourteen-month delay in payment was presented to the district court. The Plaintiff's repetition of earlier arguments without suggesting how the district court abused its discretion or explaining the errors for correction left the appellate court in no position to reverse the district court's rulings and decisions (paras 1-7).