Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Decision Information

Montoya v. Sandoval

Collection Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Date 12/03/2012
Docket Numbers 32,377
Decision-maker(s) JONATHAN B. SUTIN; CELIA FOY CASTILLO; JAMES J. WECHSLER
Opinion Type Unreported Opinions
Relations See AI generated summary - Montoya v. Sandoval (AI Generated Opinion Summaries) - 12/03/2012
Citations - New Mexico Laws and Court Rules
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,882 documents

Decision Content

MONTOYA V. SANDOVAL

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

DAVID C. MONTOYA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
CARMELA MONTOYA
SANDOVAL,
Respondent-Appellee.

No. 32,377

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO

December 3, 2012


APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY, Eugenio S. Mathis, District Judge

COUNSEL

David C. Montoya, Las Vegas, NM, Pro Se Appellant

Carmela M. Montoya Sandoval, Las Vegas, NM, Pro Se Appellee

JUDGES

JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge. WE CONCUR: CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, JAMES J. WECSLER, Judge

AUTHOR: JONATHAN B. SUTIN

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SUTIN, Judge.

Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

WE CONCUR:

CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge

JAMES J. WECSLER, Judge

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.