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 BYZ Enterprises, LLC (BYZ), as the Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, and Dusty Erven, doing business as Erven Enterprises, as the Defendant/Counterclaimant. The dispute reached the Court of Appeals following the district court's decision to consolidate cases and grant summary judgment in favor of BYZ. Mr. Erven, representing himself, appealed against these decisions, challenging the consolidation of cases without a hearing and the summary judgment granted to BYZ. He also raised issues regarding an unsigned draft settlement agreement, arguing it presented a genuine issue of material fact that could preclude summary judgment.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Alan M. Malott, District Judge: Ordered the consolidation of cases and granted summary judgment in favor of BYZ Enterprises, LLC.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (BYZ Enterprises, LLC): Argued for the consolidation of cases and successfully moved for summary judgment on the grounds that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
• Appellant (Dusty Erven): Contended that his due process rights were violated by the consolidation of cases without a hearing and argued that an unsigned draft of a settlement agreement raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a valid, enforceable settlement agreement.

Legal Issues

• Whether the consolidation of cases without a hearing violated the appellant's due process rights.
• Whether an unsigned draft settlement agreement constitutes a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions to consolidate the cases and grant summary judgment in favor of BYZ Enterprises, LLC.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge James J. Wechsler with Judges Cynthia A. Fry and M. Monica Zamora concurring, provided several reasons for their decision:
  The Court noted that issues must be preserved for appellate review by being raised in the trial court on the same grounds argued on appeal. Mr. Erven's failure to object to the consolidation or file a motion to reconsider was noted as a failure to preserve these issues for review (para 2).
  Regarding the summary judgment, the Court reiterated that summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mr. Erven's argument regarding the draft settlement agreement was found insufficient to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact that would preclude summary judgment. The Court emphasized that unsupported propositions or those lacking citation to authority would not be considered (paras 3-4).
  The Court also addressed procedural aspects, including the handling of a second appeal filed by Mr. Erven, which raised issues identical to those in the present case, along with additional matters. These additional matters were transferred to the current case, and the second appeal was closed. However, the Court found the new issues raised by Mr. Erven to be outside the record of the case and therefore not viable for review (paras 5-8).
  Finally, the Court affirmed the district court's decisions for the reasons stated above and in the Court's notice of proposed disposition, cautioning Mr. Erven to exercise candor in future dealings with the Court (paras 9-10).