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 plaintiffs appealed from the district court's order amending summary judgment and denying their motion to reconsider summary judgment regarding claims to various easements across the defendants' property and to an off-street parking space. The underlying dispute involves the plaintiffs' claims for an implied easement by necessity and a prescriptive easement, which the district court dismissed, and the defendants' counterclaims for quiet title and a permanent injunction (paras 1, 3-4, 8).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Contended that the district court's rejection of all of their claims to various easements across the defendants' property and to the off-street parking space practically disposed of the defendants' counterclaims for quiet title. They also argued that the orders in place have the same or similar effect as an injunction (para 8).
• Defendants-Appellees: Supported the notice of proposed summary disposition, arguing that there was a lack of a final, appealable order and thus the appeal should be dismissed (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's orders, which dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for an implied easement by necessity and a prescriptive easement and denied their motion to reconsider summary judgment, constitute a final, appealable order (paras 1-2, 4, 6-7).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal for lack of a final, appealable order (para 10).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, comprising Judge Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge Roderick T. Kennedy, and Judge Michael E. Vigil, unanimously decided to dismiss the appeal. The court determined that the district court's order did not resolve all issues of law and fact to the fullest extent possible, particularly noting that the defendants' counterclaim for a permanent injunction was not disposed of by the district court's order. The court emphasized the importance of a final order for appellate review and noted that the district court's order lacked the necessary certification for a partial final judgment under Rule 1-054(B)(1) NMRA. The court also highlighted the ongoing nature of the dispute and the need for clarity and certainty in the declaration of parties' rights to avoid future confusion about the property. Despite the plaintiffs' contention that the district court's orders practically disposed of the defendants' counterclaims, the court was not persuaded to address the merits of the plaintiffs' appeal due to the absence of a final, appealable order (paras 1-10).