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

A minor child sustained severe burns after coming into contact with an electric line owned by the Defendant while climbing a tree. The Plaintiffs, acting on behalf of the child, filed a personal injury lawsuit seeking damages for the injuries caused by the incident (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court, July 28, 1993: The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs, awarding nearly $500,000 in damages plus interest. Judgment was entered on this verdict (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the district court erred in permitting the Defendant to file a supersedeas bond and granting a stay of enforcement of the judgment after the statutory and rule-based deadlines had expired (para 3).
• Defendant: Contended that the Plaintiffs could not execute the judgment because they were pursuing a cross-appeal and argued that there was a risk the Plaintiffs would spend the judgment money and be unable to repay it if the judgment was reversed on appeal (para 9).

Legal Issues

• Did the district court err in granting the Defendant permission to file a supersedeas bond and stay of execution after the statutory and rule-based deadlines had expired?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals held that the district court erred in allowing the Defendant to file a supersedeas bond and obtain a stay of execution after the expiration of the time limitations prescribed by statute and rule (para 12).

Reasons

Per Donnelly J. (Alarid and Black JJ. concurring):

The Court found that under NMSA 1978, Section 39-3-22(A), and SCRA 1986, 1-062(D), the Defendant had a maximum of 90 days from the date of judgment to file a supersedeas bond and obtain a stay of execution. The Defendant failed to meet this deadline, as its request was made more than two weeks after the 90-day period had expired (paras 3-4).

The Court rejected the Defendant's reliance on prior case law, including Segal v. Goodman and In re Estate of Gardner, finding that these cases did not support granting a stay outside the prescribed time limits (paras 6-8). The Court also dismissed the Defendant's arguments regarding the Plaintiffs' cross-appeal and the risk of non-repayment, emphasizing that the Defendant could have protected itself by timely posting the required bond (paras 9-11).

The Court concluded that allowing the Defendant to file a supersedeas bond after the deadline would undermine the statutory and rule-based time limitations, and therefore, the district court's decision to grant the stay was erroneous (para 12).