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 Plaintiff, Ventana Ranch Apartments, filed a "Petition by Owner for Restitution" against the Defendant, Michael Newman, under the Uniform Owner‑Resident Relations Act (UORRA), alleging breach of the rental agreement due to the Defendant's involvement in a physical altercation with another resident on May 4, 2021, which resulted in serious physical harm and hospitalization of the other resident. The Plaintiff sought immediate possession of the premises, costs, and attorney fees. The metropolitan court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, terminating the rental agreement (para 2).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court, May 19, 2021: Judgment for Restitution in favor of Plaintiff, terminating the rental agreement (para 2).
• District Court of Bernalillo County, Denise Barela Shepherd, Judge: Affirmed the metropolitan court's Judgment for Restitution (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the Defendant breached the rental agreement by engaging in unlawful action causing serious physical harm to another person, seeking immediate possession of the premises, costs, and attorney fees (para 2).
• Defendant: Contended entitlement to a trial de novo in the district court, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 34-8A-6(C) (2019), arguing that the right to trial de novo is mandatory and cannot be waived by procedural error (paras 1, 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was entitled to a trial de novo in the district court pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 34-8A-6(C) (2019) (para 4).

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s Order and remanded the case for trial de novo (para 9).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Gerald E. Baca, with Chief Judge Jennifer L. Attrep and Judge Jacqueline R. Medina concurring, found that the district court erred by not providing a trial de novo as required by Section 34-8A-6(C). The Court emphasized that appeals from the metropolitan court in civil actions brought pursuant to the UORRA must be tried anew in the district court, as if no trial had been had below. The district court's engagement in an on-the-record review instead of a trial de novo was deemed incorrect, leading to the reversal and remand of the case for a trial de novo (paras 4-8).