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, Lee Stone, filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, Robin Smith and Aleta Smith (the Smiths), seeking redress for unspecified grievances. The district court ruled against the Plaintiff, awarding the Smiths $5,320.05.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the district court erred by not granting a hearing on his motion for relief from judgment and order, which was based on newly discovered evidence, and by not entering its findings of fact and conclusions of law as promised. The Plaintiff also objected to the adequacy of service regarding the February 12, 2013, order and requested more extensive findings and conclusions from the district court.
• Defendants-Appellees (the Smiths): Supported the district court's judgment against the Plaintiff and opposed the Plaintiff's motion to amend the docketing statement and his objections to the court's procedures and findings.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by not granting a hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment and order based on newly discovered evidence.
• Whether the district court erred by not entering its findings of fact and conclusions of law as promised.
• Whether the district court's order was void due to improper service.
• Whether the case should be remanded for the district court to enter more extensive findings and conclusions.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment against the Plaintiff, Lee Stone, in favor of the Defendants-Appellees, Robin Smith and Aleta Smith.

Reasons

• BUSTAMANTE, Judge (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to amend his docketing statement, emphasizing that the district court resolves conflicts in evidence and that evidence is not re-weighed on appeal (para 2).
  The Court held that the district court properly did not hold a hearing to address the Plaintiff's allegations of newly discovered evidence because the filing of the notice of appeal precluded the district court from considering its merits while the case was pending on appeal (para 3).
  The Court found that the district court made adequate findings in its February 12, 2013, order, including findings that the Plaintiff slandered the Smiths’ title and caused damages to the Smiths in specific amounts requested by them. The Court noted that the lack of labeled "conclusions" in the order did not constitute error as the court's findings sufficed to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint against the Smiths and award judgment in favor of the Smiths (para 4).
  The Court declined the Plaintiff's request to remand for the district court to enter more extensive findings and conclusions, stating there was no indication that the district court would be inclined to grant the Plaintiff relief based on the alleged newly discovered evidence (para 5).