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 over a forcible entry or detainer request by the Plaintiff to remove the Defendant from a home and an award of prorated rent. The Defendant, representing herself, challenges the metropolitan court's judgment, which favored the Plaintiff. The Defendant's appeal includes issues related to a separate foreclosure action and chain of title, which are not within the scope of this appeal (paras 1-3).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: Entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiff for forcible entry or detainer and awarded prorated rent (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued issues related to a separate district court foreclosure action and the chain of title of the home, which are beyond the scope of the current appeal. Also claimed that the metropolitan court should have allowed the admission of certain evidence (paras 2-3).
- Plaintiff: Opposed the Defendant's appeal, supporting the metropolitan court's judgment (para 1).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant's appeal adequately presented allegations of error for the appellate court to review.
- Whether the issues related to the district court foreclosure action and chain of title are within the scope of the current appeal.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the metropolitan court's judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (para 4).
Reasons
Per Hanisee J. (Duffy and Baca JJ. concurring): The Court found that the Defendant failed to present any allegations of error or comply with procedural rules necessary for appellate review. The Defendant's docketing statement and memorandum in opposition did not provide facts pertinent to the metropolitan court proceedings or challenge the substance of the judgment. The Court emphasized that issues related to the district court foreclosure action and chain of title are outside the scope of this appeal. The Defendant's arguments were unclear and did not direct the Court to any error in the proposed resolution (paras 2-4).