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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 from 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 ROSALIE IVEY, 2 Petitioner-Appellant, 3

v. NO. 33,458 4 CATHY JENNINGS, 5 Respondent-Appellee. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY 7 Karen L. Parsons, District Judge 8 William N. Griffin 9 Ruidoso, NM 10 For Appellant 11 H. John Underwood, LTD. 12 H. John Underwood 13 Alexandra Bobbit 14 Ruidoso, NM 15 for Appellee 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 ZAMORA, Judge. 18
{1} Petitioner seeks to appeal from the distri ct court’s order granting trial judgment 19 in favor of Respondent and another unname d order, both filed on November 13, 2013. 20 [RP 460-66] Petitioner filed a timely post- judgment motion, pursuant to Rule 1- 212 052(D) NMRA, asking “the court to make findi ngs of fact and conclusions of law and 1 to amend the trial judgment.” [RP 494-97] Pe titioner also filed notices of appeal from 2 the district court’s orders. [RP 502-03, 505-06] 3
{2} We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to dismiss on 4 grounds that the motion could alter, amend, or moot the di strict court’s final orders; 5 and thus, the orders are no longer final for purposes of appeal. See Rule 12-201(D)(1) 6 NMRA (stating that “[i]f any party timel y files a motion under Section 39-1-1 NMSA 7 1978, . . . Rule 1-052(D) NMRA, or Rule 1-059 NMRA, . . . the full time prescribed 8 in this rule for the filing of the noti ce of appeal shall co mmence to run and be 9 computed from the filing of an order expressly disposing of the . . . motion.”); 10 Grygorwicz v. Trujillo , 2009-NMSC-009, ¶ 8, 145 N.M . 650, 203 P.3d 865 (holding 11 that “when a party makes a motion challengi ng the district court’s determination of 12 the rights of the parties contained in the [fin al order, the order is no longer] final, and 13 the time for filing an appeal does not begin to run, until the district court disposes of 14 the motion”). 15
{3} Respondent and Petitioner have filed responses to our notice, agreeing that the 16 orders are not final for purposes of appeal, in light of Petitioner’s post-judgment 17 motion. [Ct. App. file] We continue to believe that Petitioner’s post-judgment motion 18 renders the district court’s orders non-final and renders Petitioner’s appeal premature. 193 See Dickens v. Laurel Healthcare, LLC , 2009-NMCA-122, ¶ 6, 147 N.M. 303, 222 1 P.3d 675 (observing that “when a Rule 1-059(E) motion, or other motion that 2 challenges the district court’s determination of the rights of the parties, is pending in 3 the district court, the judgment or order entered by the district court remains 4 non-final” such that appeal is premature) . We, therefore, dismiss Petitioner’s appeal 5 for lack of a final, appealable order and remand for further proceedings. See id. ¶¶ 6-7. 6
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

_______________________________ 8 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 9

WE CONCUR: 10

____________________________ 11 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 12

____________________________ 13 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 14