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 a dispute over a judgment from a magistrate court requiring the Defendant to pay $2,611.00 to the Plaintiff, Absolute Realty, acting as an agent for property owners. The Defendant challenged the judgment, arguing procedural errors and questioning the Plaintiff's standing and status as a real party in interest (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• Magistrate Court: Judgment in favor of Plaintiff for $2,611.00.
• District Court: Affirmed the magistrate court's judgment due to the Defendant's failure to post an appeal bond (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by affirming the magistrate court's judgment due to a failure to post an appeal bond, claimed Plaintiff lacked standing as they were not registered with the Secretary of State, and contended that Plaintiff was not a real party in interest as the property was owned by a trust (paras 2, 4, 6).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Supported the district court's decision, arguing that the judgment was based on evidence presented at trial and that the Plaintiff was a real party in interest under Rule 1-017(A) NMRA (paras 3, 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in affirming the magistrate court's judgment due to the Defendant's failure to post an appeal bond.
• Whether the Plaintiff had standing to sue given their registration status.
• Whether the Plaintiff was a real party in interest under Rule 1-017(A) NMRA.
• Whether the district court erred in granting Plaintiff's motion for unpaid rent or removal of the Defendant from the property.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's counterclaims and affirmative defense (paras 2-9).

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (para 12).

Reasons

Per Hansiee J. (Attrep and Wray JJ. concurring): The court found that the district court's judgment was based on evidence presented at trial, not on the failure to post an appeal bond. The Plaintiff's standing was not affected by their registration status, as the Defendant did not adequately develop this argument. The Plaintiff was a real party in interest under Rule 1-017(A) NMRA, as they were acting as an agent for the property owners. The district court's decision to grant the Plaintiff's motion for unpaid rent or removal was appropriate, as procedural protections under Section 47-8-47 were not applicable. The Defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her counterclaims and affirmative defense, and the district court's findings were presumed correct (paras 3-12).