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 landlord-tenant dispute. The landlord sought to evict the tenant, citing late rent payments, excessive animals on the property, and alleged lease violations. The tenant argued that the eviction was retaliatory, claiming it occurred after complaints about mold on the premises. The tenant also challenged the validity of the eviction notices and the execution of the eviction during the pendency of an appeal.
Procedural History
- Magistrate Court: Issued a writ of restitution in favor of the landlord, allowing eviction.
- District Court: Affirmed the eviction and denied the tenant's claims, including retaliatory eviction and invalid eviction notices. The court also denied the landlord's request for attorney fees.
Parties' Submissions
- Tenant: Argued that the eviction was retaliatory, the eviction notices were invalid, the eviction was improperly executed during the appeal, and the district court failed to conduct a trial de novo. The tenant also contended that the district court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the landlord's request for attorney fees.
- Landlord: Asserted that the eviction was justified due to late rent payments, excessive animals on the property, and lease violations. The landlord also sought attorney fees.
Legal Issues
- Did the magistrate court err in allowing the landlord's petition for restitution despite the tenant's prior district court complaint?
- Was the eviction retaliatory under New Mexico law?
- Were the eviction notices invalid under NMSA 1978, Section 47-8-37(B)?
- Was the eviction improperly executed during the pendency of the appeal?
- Did the district court fail to conduct a trial de novo?
- Did the district court lack jurisdiction to reconsider the landlord's request for attorney fees?
Disposition
- The district court's rulings on the tenant's claims were affirmed.
- The landlord's cross-appeal regarding attorney fees was dismissed.
- The October 2, 2008, order denying the landlord's motion to reconsider attorney fees was declared void.
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Bustamante and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
Petition for Restitution: The tenant's argument regarding the magistrate court's jurisdiction was not preserved for review, as it was not raised in the district court. Additionally, the appellate court reviews district court proceedings, not magistrate court proceedings.
Retaliatory Eviction: Substantial evidence supported the district court's finding that the eviction was justified due to late rent payments, excessive animals, and lease violations. The court found no abuse of discretion in rejecting the tenant's retaliatory eviction claim.
Eviction Notices: The invalidity of the eviction notices was irrelevant because the eviction was based on a writ of restitution issued by the magistrate court, not the notices. The district court did not err in failing to find the notices invalid.
Execution of Eviction: Although the eviction during the appeal was improper, the tenant was restored to the property through a temporary restraining order. The tenant did not seek further relief, and no error was found.
Trial De Novo: The district court conducted a trial de novo, as evidenced by discovery, trial proceedings, and written arguments. The lack of written findings and conclusions did not violate Rule 1-072.
Attorney Fees: The district court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the landlord's request for attorney fees after the tenant filed a notice of appeal. The October 2, 2008, order was void, and the landlord's cross-appeal was dismissed.