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 alleged that during the annulment proceedings between her and her ex-husband, the Defendant, who represented her ex-husband, was paid by a third party and engaged in actions that were contrary to her interests. She claimed these actions left her without assets and caused her extreme emotional distress.

Procedural History

• District Court, Bernalillo County: The Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants were dismissed. The court found that the Plaintiff's allegations against Defendant Stoops did not meet the legal threshold for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and dismissed the claims against Defendants Shapiro and Adelo for lack of a final order.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that Defendant Stoops's actions during the annulment proceedings caused her extreme emotional distress and financial harm. She opposed the dismissal of her claims against Stoops, asserting that his conduct should meet the threshold for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• Defendants-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff's allegations against Defendant Stoops met the legal threshold for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• Whether the appeal regarding Defendants Shapiro and Adelo was premature due to the lack of a final order.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Stoops.
• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal regarding Defendants Shapiro and Adelo as premature.

Reasons

Per Castillo J. (Bustamante and Garcia JJ. concurring):

The Court found that the Plaintiff's allegations against Defendant Stoops did not meet the stringent legal standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The conduct alleged must be "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency" and be "utterly intolerable in a civilized community" (para 6, citing Trujillo v. Northern Rio Arriba Elec. Coop., Inc., 2002-NMSC-004). The Court emphasized that Stoops was acting in an adversarial capacity on behalf of his client, the Plaintiff's ex-husband, and that attorneys do not owe a duty to protect the interests of opposing parties in litigation (para 7, citing Garcia v. Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., 106 N.M. 757). Additionally, the Court noted that emotional distress claims in the context of marriage dissolution are limited to the most extreme circumstances, which were not present here (para 7, citing Hakkila v. Hakkila, 112 N.M. 172).

Regarding Defendants Shapiro and Adelo, the Court dismissed the appeal as premature because there was no final order from the district court concerning these Defendants.