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 distribution of settlement proceeds related to a subrogation claim. The Appellants challenged the district court's order regarding the allocation of these proceeds (paras 1, 5).

Procedural History

• District Court, September 22, 1994: Issued an order distributing the settlement proceeds (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants: Argued that their motion for reconsideration, filed under Rule 1-059(E), was not automatically denied after thirty days and that the district court's failure to schedule a hearing within thirty days should not preclude their appeal. They also contended that the case fell within a "twilight zone of finality" and should not be subject to the "bright line rule" for appeal deadlines (paras 3, 5-6).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Appellants' motion for reconsideration extended the time for filing a notice of appeal beyond thirty days.
• Whether the district court's failure to schedule a hearing within thirty days affected the appeal deadline.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed for failure to file a timely notice of appeal (para 7).

Reasons

Per Apodaca CJ (Bosson and Bustamante JJ. concurring):

The court held that under NMSA 1978, Section 39-1-1, and Rule 12-201, a motion for reconsideration is deemed denied by operation of law after thirty days unless another statute provides otherwise. The Appellants' motion did not extend the time for appeal beyond thirty days from the date of the automatic denial. The notice of appeal, filed on December 22, 1994, was therefore untimely as it was required to be filed by November 29, 1994 (paras 2-4).

The court rejected the Appellants' argument that the case fell within a "twilight zone of finality," noting that the district court's order resolved all remaining issues and did not involve collateral matters (para 5). Additionally, the court found that the Appellants could have requested an extension of time for filing the notice of appeal but failed to do so (para 6).