March 11, 2019- Arlin Gamble v. Timberon Water and Sanitation District, No. A-1-CA-36799

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

10

11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19
20

21
22
23
24

25

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico

ARLIN GAMBLE, LYNDOL WILCOX, Filed 3/11/2019 8:49 AM
DEWAYNE BEAGLES, and VIRGIL AL />
BEAGLES, ~

Mark Reynolds

Plaintiffs,
Vv. No. A-1-CA-36799
TIMBERON WATER AND
SANITATION DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee,

IN THE MATTER OF ATTORNEY
CHARGING LIEN, ROBERT BEAUVAIS,
PA,

Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY |
Matthew G. Reynolds, District Judge

Carillo Law Firm, P.C.
Rati A Carillo, Jr.
Steven E. Jones

Las Cruces, NJ. M

for Appellee

J. Robert Beauvais, P.A.
J. Robert Beauvais
Ruidoso, NM

for Appellant

1 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
2 HANIS EE, Judge.
3 {1} 	Attorney J. 	Robert Beauvais, a self-represented litigant, appeals from a
4 memorandum decision, entered November 30, 2016, and an order, entered on
5 February 10, 2017, addressing the accrual of post-judgment interest on the attorney
6 charging lien in this case. [DS PDF 2; 6 RP 1377-78, 1438-41, 1484-85] This Court
7 issued a notice of proposed disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Beauvais has
8 filed a memorandum in opposition, and Timberon Water and Sanitation District filed
9 a memorandum in support of our proposed disposition. We have duly considered the
10 responses, and for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed disposition and in this
11 	opinion, we affirm.
12 {2} 	In our notice of proposed disposition, we noted that Beauvais was challenging
13 	the district court's decision to permit partial payments in the interpleader action, the
14 district court's calculation of interest, and whether the district court even had
15 jurisdiction over the interpleader action "without requiring the entire amount in
16 dispute to be deposited in the court registry[.]" [CN 4-5 (quoting DS PDF 8)] In
17 support ofhis arguments, Beauvais relied on the settlement agreement and Rule 1-022
18 NMRA. [CN 5] After reviewing the record, including the settlement agreement and
19 Rule 1-022, we stated that we were not persuaded that the district court's decisions
2

1 regarding calculation of interest were inconsistent with the settlement agreement or
2 Rule 1-022. [CN 5]
3 	{3} 	In response, Beauvais acknowledges that the settlement agreement authorized
4 partial payments and that he agreed to accept partial payments. [MIO PDF 2]
5 Nevertheless, he maintains that Rule 1-022 does not permit partial payments. [MIO
6 PDF 2] Likewise, he continues to argue that this Court "should construe Rule 1-022
7 and the settlement agreement between the parties and conclude [that he] was entitled
8 to receive post[-ljudgment interest until the time the judgment was fully satisfied."
9 [MIO PDF 3] He makes these arguments without reference to persuasive authority.
10 	We have already addressed these arguments in our notice of proposed summary
11 	disposition 	and 	will 	not 	revisit 	them 	here. 	See 	Hennessey 	v. 	Duryea,
12 	1998-NMCA-036, ~ 24, 124 N.M. 754,955 P.3d 683 ("[I]n summary calendar cases,
13 	the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out
14 errors in fact or law.").
15 	{4} 	Therefore, for the reasons discussed above and in this Court's notice of
16 proposed disposition, we conclude that the district court did not err in determining the
17 interest calculations in this case. Accordingly, we affirm.
3

6} ITISSO ORDERED.

9 luo~

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

WE CONCUR:

MEGAN P. DUFFY, J