This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 IN THE MATTER OF THE RUSSELL 2 FAMILY TRUST, 3 and 4 SHARON RUSSELL, 5 Plaintiff-Appellant, 6

v. NO. 34,501 7 ESTATE OF DIANA RUSSELL, 8 Defendant-Appellee. 9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ROOSEVELT COUNTY 10 Donna J. Mowrer, District Judge 11 Eric D. Dixon 12 Portales, NM 13 for Appellant 14 Stephen E. Doerr 15 Portales, NM 16 for Appellee 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 ZAMORA, Judge. 192 {1} Petitioner Sharon Russell (hereinafter “Sharon”) appeals from the district 1 court’s order finally distributing the asse ts from Trust A and Trust B and requiring 2 Sharon to pay the Estate of Diana Russell a total of $17,865.97 for equalization of the 3 distribution of the real estate in both trusts. Unpersuaded that Sharon demonstrated 4 error, we issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm. 5 Sharon has responded to our notice witha memorandum in opposition. We have 6 considered Sharon’s response and remainunpersuaded that she has demonstrated 7 error. We therefore affirm. 8 {2} On appeal, Sharon has argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to take 9 further action in this matter and distribute the assets of th e trust because this case was 10 appealed and pending in this Court. [DS 3] Sharon has al so argued that the district 11 court erred as a matter of law in determining that she owed the Estate of Diana Russell 12 $17,865.97, arguing that this amount is in flated by approximately $15,406.00. [DS 4] 13 We issued a notice proposing to reject Sharon’s jurisdictional challenge on the 14 grounds that the orders she previously app ealed were final and appealable under two 15 theories, and Sharon never obtained a stay of the orders in district court; and, even if 16 there were some jurisdictional problem, no purpose would be served in reversing and 17 remanding to district court ordering it to do something it has already done. In response 18 to Sharon’s claim of error in the actual di stribution of the trust assets, our notice 193 presumed correctness in light of the docketi ng statement’s failure to supply this Court 1 with sufficient information to review the claim on the merits. 2 {3} In her memorandum in opposition to our no tice, Sharon states that she “has no 3 further argument regarding the summary affirmance related to issue number one.” 4 [MIO 1] We remain persuaded that it was not reversible error for the district court to 5 proceed to distribute the assets while previ ous orders were on appeal, as set forth in 6 our notice. 7 {4} Sharon pursues her second claim of error: her objection to the actual 8 distribution of the trust assets, requiri ng her to pay $17,865.97. [MIO 2-4] Again, 9 Sharon does not supply this Court with suffi cient information about her claim for our 10 review of the merits. She does not desc ribe one piece of evidence upon which the 11 district court relied in arriving on the amount owed, nor any evidence upon which her 12 arguments relied. Sharon refers us to a sp readsheet, [MIO 3] but does not explain what 13 evidence was used as a basis for the spr eadsheet, why the district court might have 14 rejected it, and how the district court’s rejection of her arguments might constitute 15 legal error. See State v. Chamberlain , 1989-NMCA-082, ¶ 11, 109 N.M. 173, 783 16 P.2d 483 (stating that where an appellant fails “to provide us with a summary of all 17 the facts material to consideration of [h is or her] issue, as required by [Rule 18 12-208(D)(3) NMRA], we cannot grant re lief on [that] ground”). Rather, Sharon 194 makes mere bald conclusions relative to th e amount she owes to her sister’s estate. 1 [MIO 3] We will not engage in any speculati on as to how the district court might have 2 erred, and we certainly will not pres ume that the district court erred. See State v. 3 Guerra , 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21, 278 P.3d 1031 (observing that appellate courts will 4 not review unclear or undeveloped argumen ts). Because Sharon has not supplied this 5 Court with sufficient information to demonstrate error, we presume correctness and 6 affirm. See State v. Aragon , 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10, 127 N.M. 393, 981 P.2d 1211 7 (stating that we presume correctness in the trial court’s rulings and the burden is on 8 the appellant to demonstrate trial court error). 9 {5} For the reasons stated in this Opinion and in our notice, we affirm the district 10 court’s order distributing the trust assets. 11 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15

16 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 17

18 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 19