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 Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official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

CARLOS OGDEN and 7 HENRY BURK FLEMING, 8 Plaintiffs-Appellees, 9

v. NO. 29,746 10 PETE Q. TORRES and 11 ROSEMARY MACDONALD, 12 Defendants-Appellants. 13

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRANT COUNTY 14 Gary Jeffreys, District Judge 15 Jeffrey W. Smith 16 Deming, NM 17 for Appellees 18 Peter A. Keys 19 Silver City, NM 20 for Appellants 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION 22 WECHSLER, Judge. 232 Pete Torres and Rosemary McDonald (Defendants) seek to appeal from an 1 amended default judgment and order denying relief pursuant to Rule 1-060(B) 2 NMRA. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to dismiss 3 the appeal principally for want of a final order. Defendants have filed a memorandum 4 in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded that this matter is 5 properly before us. We therefore dismiss. 6 As we explained in the notice of pr oposed summary disposition, the right to 7 appeal is generally restricted to final judgments and decisions. See NMSA 1978, § 8 39-3-2 (1966); see also Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison , 113 N.M. 231, 234-40, 9 824 P.2d 1033, 1036-42 (1992). Whether an order is final, such that appeal is 10 statutorily authorized, is a jurisdictional que stion that this Court is required to raise 11 on its own motion. Khalsa v. Levinson , 1998-NMCA-110, ¶ 12, 125 N.M. 680, 964 12 P.2d 844. “[F]or purposes of appeal, an order or judgment is not considered final 13 unless all issues of law and fact have beendetermined and the case disposed of by the 14 trial court to the fullest extent possible.” B.L. Goldberg & Assocs., Inc. v. Uptown, 15
Inc. , 103 N.M. 277, 278, 705 P.2d 683, 684 (1985). 16 As we previously indicated, the order from which Defendants seek to appeal 17 does not resolve the underlying issues to the fullest extent possible. To the contrary, 183 the question of damages, which was speci fically and repeatedly raised in the 1 complaint, [RP 1-15] remains pending for deci sion “at a later date.” [RP 60] Under 2 such circumstances, the underlying order cannot be regarded as final and appealable. 3 See Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Straus , 116 N.M. 412, 416, 863 P.2d 447, 451 4 (1993) (observing that, “when a request for damages is part of a declaratory action . . . 5 the judgment is not final until the damage award is quantified,” and holding that an 6 order addressing liability was not final because the amount of the damages and 7 attorney fees had not been determined); Cole v. McNeill , 102 N.M. 146, 148, 692 P.2d 8 532, 534 (Ct. App. 1984) (holding that an order denying a motion to set aside a default 9 judgment was not final and appealable when a question of damages remained 10 unresolved). 11 In their memorandum in opposition, Defendants provide no response to our 12 stated concerns about the lack of a final, appealable order. Instead, they focus 13 exclusively on the question of Rosemary Mc Donald’s standing. [MIO 1-4] Although 14 her apparent lack of standing remains a c oncern, the absence of a final order renders 15 this issue superfluous. 16 Accordingly, for the reasons statedabove and in our notice of proposed 17 summary disposition, this appeal is dismissed. 184 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

_______________________________ 2 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4

_________________________________ 5 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 6

_________________________________ 7 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 8