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 Plaintiff Creig Butler's efforts to collect a judgment over four years from Defendants, including Motiva Performance Engineering, LLC, Dealerbank Financial Services, Ltd., Armageddon High Performance Solutions, LLC, and William S. Ferguson. The dispute centers on the award of attorney fees related to these collection efforts (paras 1 and 7).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Awarded attorney fees to Plaintiff Creig Butler for efforts to collect a judgment.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants: Argued that the award of attorney fees should be vacated because the Plaintiff's application lacked a supporting affidavit, included amounts already awarded and paid, was untimely, and a portion of the award lacked a statutory basis (para 1).
• Appellee: Asserted that the application for attorney fees was supported by billing records and that the fees were reasonable and related to the collection of the judgment. The Plaintiff also argued that the fees were inextricably intertwined with the judgment collection efforts (paras 4-5, 8, and 16).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in awarding attorney fees without a supporting affidavit.
• Whether the award included amounts already awarded and paid in previous proceedings.
• Whether the application for attorney fees was untimely.
• Whether the district court erred in awarding fees without a statutory basis.
• Whether the district court should have limited the post-judgment fee award to fees related to the Plaintiff’s UPA claim.

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's award of attorney fees to Plaintiff Creig Butler (para 1).

Reasons

Per Duffy J. (Hanisee and Attrep JJ. concurring):

• The court found that the Plaintiff's application for attorney fees was sufficient as it included detailed billing records, and an affidavit was not strictly necessary. The Defendants did not challenge the reasonableness of the rates or the amount of time billed (paras 4-5).
• The court determined that the Plaintiff adequately demonstrated that fees related to the sanctions proceedings and appeal had been excluded from the present fee award, and the Defendants failed to show that duplicative fees were requested or received (paras 8-11).
• The court held that the application for attorney fees was not untimely under Rule 12-403 NMRA, as the procedural requirements of the rule do not bar recovery of fees awarded under the Unfair Practices Act (UPA) (para 12).
• The court concluded that the district court did not err in awarding all post-judgment fees, as the fees were inextricably intertwined with the judgment collection efforts and could not be separated based on the components of the award (paras 14-16).