This decision was not selected for publication inthe New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note that this electronic decision may contain computer-g enerated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Supreme Court. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 GUSTAVO COBLENTZ, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. No. A-1-CA-36803 4 TANA BATIS, 5 Defendant-Appellant, 6 and 7 SANTA FE COMMUNITY HOUSING 8 TRUST, 9 Defendant, 10 and 11 JENNIFER RIOS and MARTIN RIOS, 12 Intervenors. 13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 14 David K. Thomson, District Judge 15 Gustavo Coblentz 16 Santa Fe, NM 17 Pro Se Appellee 18 Trace L. Rabern 192 Santa Fe, NM 1 for Appellant 2 VanAmberg, Rogers, Yepa, Abeita & Gomez 3 Ronald J. VanAmberg 4 Santa Fe, NM 5 for Defendant 6 Mark E. Komer 7 Santa Fe, NM 8 for Intervenors 9 MEMORANDUM OPINION 10 VANZI, Judge. 11 {1} Defendant appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion to 12 reconsider and the underlying order and fi nal judgment. In this Court’s notice of 13 proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily reverse and remand. Plaintiff, acting 14 in a self-represented capacity, filed a memorandum in opposition. Remaining 15 unpersuaded, we reverse and remand. 16 {2} In our calendar notice, we proposed to reverse and remand because it appeared 17 that the figures on which the district court re lied in its order regarding the value of the 18 house and the amount to which each party was entitled was unsupported by evidence 19 in the record. [CN 1, 3-6] In his memorandum in opposition, in pertinent part, Plaintiff 203 contends that he testified at trial about the quality of construc tion and value of the 1 house; that the appraisal on wh ich Defendant relied in her motions for reconsideration 2 were not listed as trial exhibits or offere d through witness testim ony, and Plaintiff had 3 no opportunity to cross examine or submit rebuttal testimony; and that Plaintiff had 4 asked for an injunction early in litigation on the grounds that Defendant was 5 committing waste due to her failure to maintain, inter alia, the roof, which was denied. 6 [MIO PDF 1-2] Plaintiff asks that, if we remand the case, we “require additional 7 information on the value of the house to be submitted by both parties.” [MIO PDF 2] 8 {3} Plaintiff has not provided this Court withany 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, ¶ 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, ¶ 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, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. 184 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and 1 herein, we reverse the district court’s orde r and final judgment insofar as they rely on 2 the apparently unsupported figures identifie d in our calendar notice, and remand for 3 recalculation based on figures supported by th e record, including an explanation and 4 reference to the record for the new figures and calculations, in an amended order 5 and/or an amended final judgment. In the ev ent the district court believes its originally 6 calculated figures—the value of the house a nd the amount to which Plaintiff is entitled 7 based on the value of the house and the equities of the parties in the house—are 8 accurate, the district court may reiterate such figures in its amended order and/or 9 amended final judgment, but shall include anexplanation as to how such figures and 10 calculations are supported by sufficient eviden ce in the record. The district court may 11 order briefing or a hearing to the exte nt it deems either or both necessary. 12 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

14 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 15 WE CONCUR: 16

17 MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge 185 1 BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Judge 2