March 28, 2019- Gustavo Coblentz v. Tana Batis, No. A-1-CA-36803

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

4

ioe]

10

1]

12

13

14
15

16
17

18

19
20

21

IN ..4., COUR. OF APPEALS OF .dESTATE )FNEWM IC

US AVO OBLENT.z,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
V.
TANA BATIS,
Defendant-Appellant,
and

SANTA FE COMMUNITY HOUSING
TRUST,

Defendant,
and
JENNIFER RIOS and MARTIN RIOS,

Intervenors.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 3/28/2019 9:30 AM

/
~ £4
Mark Reynolds

No. A-1-CA-36803

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT C” URT OF SANTA 1. COUN. Y

David K. Thomson, District Judge

Gustavo Coblentz
Santa Fe, NM

Pro Se Appellee

,vace L. Rabern
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellant

1 VanAmberg, Rogers, Yepa, Abeita & Gomez
2 	Ronald J. VanAmberg
3 	Santa Fe, NM
4 	for Defendant
5 Mark E. Komer
6 	Santa Fe, NM
7 for Intervenors
8
9 V ANZI, Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
10 	{I} 	Defendant appeals from the district court's order denying her motion to
11 	reconsider and the underlying order and final judgment. In this Court's notice of
12 proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily reverse and remand. Plaintiff, acting
13 	in a 	self-represented capacity, 	filed 	a memorandum 	in opposition. 	Remaining
14 unpersuaded, we reverse and remand.
15 	{2} 	In our calendar notice, we proposed to reverse and remand because it appeared
16 that the figures on which the district court relied in its order regarding the value of the
17 house and the amount to which each party was entitled was unsupported by evidence
18 	in the record. [CN 1, 3-6] In his memorandum in opposition, in pertinent part,
19 Plaintiff contends that he testified at trial about the quality of construction and value
20 	of the house; that the appraisal on which Defendant relied in her motions for
2

1 reconsideration were not listed as trial exhibits or offered through witness testimony,
2 and Plaintiff had no opportunity to cross examine or submit rebuttal testimony; and
3 that Plaintiff had asked for an injunction early in litigation on the grounds that
4 Defendant was committing waste due to her failure to maintain, inter alia, the roof,
5 which was denied. [MIO PDF 1-2] Plaintiff asks that, if we remand the case, we
6 "require additional information on the value of the house to be submitted by both
7 parties." [MIO PDF 2]
8 	{3} 	Plaintiff has not provided this Court with any new facts, law, or arguments that
9 persuade us that our notice of proposed disposition was incorrect. See Hennessy v.
10 Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ,-r 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 ("Our courts have
11 	repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing
12 	the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law."); State v.
13 	Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ,-r 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that "[a]
14 	party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically
15 	point out errors of law and fact[,]" and the repetition of earlier arguments does not
16 	fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v.
17 Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ,-r 3,297 P.3d 374.
3

1 {4} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and
2 herein, we reverse the district court's order and final judgment insofar as they rely on
3 the apparently unsupported figures identified in our calendar notice, and remand for
4 recalculation based on figures supported by the record, including an explanation and
5 reference to the record for the new figures and calculations, in an amended order
6 and/or an amended final judgment. In the event the district court believes its
7 originally calculated figures-the value of the house and the amount to which
8 Plaintiff is entitled based on the value of the house and the equities of the parties in
9 the house-are accurate, the district court may reiterate such figures in its amended
10 order and/or amended final judgment, but shall include an explanation as to how such
11 	figures and calculations are supported by sufficient evidence in the record. The
12 district court may order briefing or a hearing to the extent it deems either or both
13 	necessary.
14 	{5}
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4

1 3 2
WE CONCUR:
Megan P Duffys
MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge
$ Sanal
amora
5
BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Judge
5