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 a dispute over the management and occupancy of property belonging to the Miller Family Trusts and the estate of Joseph F. Miller. The Plaintiff, acting as trustee and personal representative, sought to remove the Defendant, her brother, from the trust property, alleging he failed to vacate and remove his belongings, including industrial equipment and vehicles, from the premises (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• District Court: Issued a preliminary injunction requiring the Defendant to vacate the property and remove his belongings (para 3).
• Miller v. Miller, A-1-CA-40296 (N.M. Ct. App. July 19, 2022): Dismissed Defendant’s first appeal for lack of a final judgment (para 4).
• Miller v. Miller, A-1-CA-40392 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2022): Affirmed the district court’s remedial contempt order (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant: Argued against the district court's dismissal of his counterclaims and challenged the contempt orders, asserting breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and undue influence by the Plaintiff (paras 1, 2, and 5).
• Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants-Appellees: Sought injunctive relief and damages, arguing the Defendant repeatedly failed to comply with court orders to vacate the property and remove his belongings (paras 1-3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the appeal of the contempt orders was timely.
• Whether the order dismissing the Defendant’s counterclaims is a final appealable order.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction (para 6).

Reasons

Per Yohalem J. (Attrep and Medina JJ. concurring): The court found that the Defendant's appeal of the contempt orders was untimely, as it was filed more than six months after the orders were entered, and no extraordinary circumstances justified the delay (paras 8-9). The order dismissing the Defendant’s counterclaims was not a final judgment, as it did not resolve all issues in the case, nor did it contain the necessary certification for immediate appeal under Rule 1-054(B) NMRA (paras 10-13). Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, leading to its dismissal and remand to the district court (para 14).