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 Respondent appealed a district court's order of protection issued against her. The appeal arose from a dispute between the parties, but the specific events leading to the issuance of the order of protection are not detailed in the decision.

Procedural History

• District Court, November 30, 2009: Issued an order of protection against the Respondent.

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent (Appellant): Argued that her motion to reconsider the order of protection was denied, relying on an attached form that she claimed constituted a denial of her motion. However, the form was not file-stamped or part of the official record.
• Petitioner (Appellee): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Respondent’s appeal was premature due to the district court not ruling on her motion for reconsideration.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the Respondent’s appeal as premature.

Reasons

Per Sutin J. (Bustamante and Kennedy JJ. concurring):

The Court found that the Respondent’s motion to reconsider the order of protection was filed outside the time limit under Rule 1-059(E) NMRA and was instead construed as a motion under Section 39-1-1 and Rule 1-054.1 NMRA. The Court noted that there was no indication in the record that the district court had ruled on the motion to reconsider, and the attached form relied upon by the Respondent was not file-stamped or part of the record.

The Court emphasized that under Albuquerque Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure eliminated the automatic denial of post-judgment motions by the passage of time, requiring the district court to rule on such motions. Consequently, the appeal was deemed premature because the district court had not issued an order disposing of the motion for reconsideration.