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 filed a lawsuit seeking the dissolution of a partnership, an accounting, and a declaratory judgment. During the pendency of the case, the Plaintiff created a revocable living trust to manage her assets and named her sisters as successor co-trustees. The Plaintiff passed away, and the Defendant filed a suggestion of death, asserting that no motion to substitute the Plaintiff's successor was filed within the required ninety-day period under Rule 1-025 NMRA 2003 (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, June 25, 2002: The trial court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice, finding that no motion to substitute parties was filed within ninety days after the suggestion of death was served (paras 5-7).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Plaintiff's attorney): Argued that the suggestion of death was not properly served on the Plaintiff's successor or estate as required by Rule 1-025 NMRA 2003. Claimed that the Defendant's attorney had agreed to approve a stipulated order of substitution upon receipt of the trust agreement, which was not honored. Requested an enlargement of time for substitution under Rule 1-006(B) NMRA 2003 (paras 4, 6).
• Appellee (Defendant): Contended that the Plaintiff's attorney had accepted service of the suggestion of death on behalf of the Plaintiff's successor and that the ninety-day period for substitution had expired. Asserted that the Plaintiff's sisters, as successor co-trustees, had actively participated in the case and were properly served through the Plaintiff's attorney (paras 3, 6).

Legal Issues

• Was the suggestion of death properly served on the Plaintiff's successor or estate to trigger the ninety-day period for substitution under Rule 1-025 NMRA 2003?
• Did the trial court err in dismissing the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice for failure to timely substitute parties?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 16).

Reasons

Per Vigil J. (Pickard and Sutin JJ. concurring):

• Rule 1-025(A)(1) requires proper service of the suggestion of death on all parties and interested non-parties to commence the ninety-day period for substitution. Service on non-parties must comply with Rule 1-004, which was not done in this case (paras 9-10).
• The Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff's attorney accepted service on behalf of the Plaintiff's successor was rejected. The attorney did not file an acceptance of service, and there was no evidence of authority to accept service on behalf of the successor (paras 10-11).
• The ninety-day period did not begin to run because the suggestion of death was not properly served on the Plaintiff's successor or estate. The trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the successor, rendering the dismissal with prejudice improper (paras 12-13).
• The appellate court exercised its discretion under Rule 12-301(A) NMRA 2003 to allow the appeal to proceed despite the Plaintiff's death, as the trial court's dismissal precluded the successor from pursuing the claims (paras 14-15).