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

• In 2002, the plaintiff, as Trustee of the Robert A. Rehm Revocable Trust, and the defendant, Parra Family Limited Partnership, entered into a real estate contract for the purchase of commercial property in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for $450,000. Following several defaults by Parra, the contract was amended in November 2010 to include increased principal and the requirement for Parra to pay all delinquent property taxes. Parra defaulted again by failing to pay real estate taxes for 2009 and the first half of 2010. The plaintiff then sought a declaratory judgment and injunction for the release of the special warranty deed from escrow. A stipulation for settlement was filed, agreeing that Parra was in default and outlining payment terms for Parra, which if not adhered to, would result in judgment against Parra. Parra filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy protection in 2011 but made a deficient payment in March 2012, leading the plaintiff to file an affidavit of default (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that Parra defaulted on the contract and its amendment by failing to pay real estate taxes and that the stipulation for settlement/judgment entitled the plaintiff to a judgment terminating Parra’s rights to the property upon default.
• Defendants-Appellants: Contended that their right to due process was violated, the rules of civil procedure were not followed, the district court effectively granted summary judgment despite disputed material facts, and the forfeiture was inequitable (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in entering judgment against Parra, terminating its rights to the property without a hearing or notice, based on the stipulation for settlement/judgment agreed upon by the parties.

Disposition

• The judgment of the district court was affirmed (para 10).

Reasons

• Per Linda M. Vanzi, J. (Michael E. Vigil, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring), the court found that Parra and its attorney voluntarily and knowingly agreed to the immediate-entry-of-judgment provision in the Stipulation, which was material to the consideration of the issues raised on appeal. The court addressed Parra's failure to inform the court of the stipulation's existence and its terms, which allowed for judgment against Parra in the event of a default. The court also dismissed Parra's arguments regarding due process, procedural violations, and equitable considerations, noting that Parra did not challenge the validity of the Stipulation or provide any argument establishing why it was error for the district court to hold the parties to the Stipulation’s default provision allowing for immediate entry of judgment. The court concluded that the district court properly entered judgment in accordance with the stipulation (paras 7-9).