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 was injured in a motor vehicle accident and was awarded $4,000 in damages by the trial court. The Plaintiff accepted payment of the judgment but later appealed, arguing that the collateral source rule was violated and that the verdict was influenced by passion, prejudice, or undue influence (paras 1, 4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Awarded $4,000 in damages to the Plaintiff for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the collateral source rule was violated and that the trial court's verdict was influenced by passion, prejudice, or undue influence. Contended that accepting payment of the judgment should not bar the appeal unless the Defendant posted a supersedeas bond (paras 1-2, 4).
• Defendant-Appellee: Moved to dismiss the appeal, asserting that the Plaintiff waived her right to appeal by accepting full payment of the judgment. Denied engaging in unethical tactics and argued that the Plaintiff's acceptance of payment invalidated her appeal (paras 1, 4-6).

Legal Issues

• Does accepting payment of a judgment waive the right to appeal the judgment?
• Can a Plaintiff repay the amount received from a judgment and continue with the appeal?

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed (para 9).

Reasons

Per Hartz J. (Bivins and Chavez JJ. concurring):

• The general rule in New Mexico is that a party waives the right to appeal by accepting the benefit of a judgment. This principle was established in prior case law, including State v. Fernandez Co. and Energy Equities Inc. (para 2).
• The exception to this rule, where there is no possibility that the appeal could result in a lesser recovery, did not apply because the Plaintiff sought a new trial on damages, which could lead to a reduced award (para 3).
• The Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant engaged in unethical tactics was unsupported by the record. The Defendant's attorney had clearly stated the implications of accepting payment during a hearing, and the Plaintiff's attorney had demanded payment of the judgment (para 4).
• The Plaintiff's argument that repayment of the judgment amount should allow the appeal to proceed was rejected. The court followed the majority rule that repayment does not cure the waiver of the right to appeal. Allowing repayment would require additional judicial resources and could lead to unfairness to the Defendant (paras 7-8).
• The Defendant's request for costs and attorney fees was denied (para 9).