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 the Defendant's appeal against the district court's order awarding attorney fees to the Plaintiff, Roosevelt County Commissioners, in a civil action concerning damage to county roads. The Defendant contested the award on the basis that only the Legislature or the courts have the authority to award attorney fees in civil actions, arguing against the applicability of an ordinance that allows for the recovery of such fees by counties.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court improperly awarded attorney fees to the Plaintiff, asserting that the authority to award attorney fees in a civil action rests exclusively with the Legislature or the courts. The Defendant also contended that an ordinance allowing counties to recover attorney fees in civil actions must be explicitly or implicitly authorized by statute or case law, and that the ordinance in question does not have such authorization (paras 2-4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The summary does not provide specific arguments made by the Plaintiff-Appellee. However, it can be inferred that the Plaintiff supported the district court's decision to award attorney fees based on the ordinance (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court improperly awarded attorney fees to the Plaintiff based on an ordinance, and whether such an ordinance must be explicitly or implicitly authorized by statute or case law (paras 2-5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order awarding attorney fees to the Plaintiff (para 6).

Reasons

• Per Ives, J., concurred by Bogardus, J., and Henderson, J.: The Court of Appeals was not persuaded by the Defendant's argument that the ordinance awarding attorney fees must be explicitly or implicitly authorized by statute or case law. The Court noted that counties are authorized to make and publish any ordinance to discharge their powers as long as the ordinance is not inconsistent with New Mexico law. The Defendant failed to cite any authority supporting his proposition that the ordinance in question permits an act that general law prohibits. Consequently, the Court concluded that the Defendant did not demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the Plaintiff, affirming the district court's decision (paras 3-6).