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 between the State Employees Credit Union and a defendant regarding a credit card debt. The defendant claims that the terms of the contract were changed without her knowledge, which she argues led to misuse of her deposited funds. The defendant acknowledges failing to make payments on the credit card. (paras 1 and 3)
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: Judgment was entered against the defendant, awarding the plaintiff $360.66 in damages and $8,792.20 in attorney fees, court fees, and costs. The defendant's counterclaim was denied. (para 1)
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the contract terms were changed without her knowledge, binding her secretly to new terms. She also contested the award of attorney fees, claiming the tasks billed were unnecessary and a waste of time. (paras 3-4)
- Appellee (Plaintiff): [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the defendant was secretly bound to new contract terms without her knowledge.
- Whether the metropolitan court erred in awarding attorney fees to the plaintiff.
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County. (para 6)
Reasons
Per Wray J. (Ives and Henderson JJ. concurring):
The court reviewed the entire record proper but noted that it did not include transcripts of the proceedings. The defendant failed to provide sufficient information regarding the bench trial, which was necessary to understand her arguments. The court emphasized that it is the appellant's responsibility to clearly demonstrate errors of law or fact. The defendant's memorandum in opposition did not engage with the proposed disposition or New Mexico law, nor did it provide the necessary factual or legal detail to support her claims. Consequently, the court applied the presumption of correctness to the trial court's rulings and found no error. (paras 2-5)