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 petition for restitution under the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act, seeking immediate possession of a rental property, past due rent, costs, damages, and attorney fees. The Defendants, who were tenants, alleged that the petition was retaliatory due to their request for repairs and denied the existence of damages.

Procedural History

• District Court, Santa Fe County: The court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, terminating the rental agreement, granting a money judgment, costs, attorney fees, and issuing a writ of restitution. However, the court left the issue of damages unresolved and did not expressly rule on the Defendants' counterclaim.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants (Defendants): Argued that the district court failed to address their counterclaim of retaliation and maintained that no damages existed. They opposed the proposed dismissal of their appeal for lack of a final order.
• Appellee (Plaintiff): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's judgment constituted a final, appealable order.
• Whether the unresolved issues of damages and the counterclaim precluded appellate jurisdiction.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed for lack of a final order.

Reasons

Per Fry J. (Castillo and Vanzi JJ. concurring):

The Court emphasized that its jurisdiction is limited to final, appealable orders. A final order resolves all issues of law and fact and disposes of the case to the fullest extent possible. The district court's judgment did not resolve the issue of damages or expressly rule on the Defendants' counterclaim. Additionally, the judgment was not certified under Rule 1-054(B)(1) NMRA, which allows for appeals of partial judgments in certain circumstances. The Court noted that the Defendants could raise their arguments upon entry of a final order and reiterated New Mexico's strong policy against piecemeal appeals. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.