Th is m e mor and um o pin ion

wa s n ot s e le c te d f

or pu bli c a tio n in

the Ne w M e xico Ap pe llate Re po rt s. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for r estrictions o n t h e citation of unpublished memora ndum op ini on s. Ple a se a lso no te that th is e le c tr on ic memo randum o pin ion may c on ta in computer- g ener ated e rror s or ot her deviations from the officia l paper version filed by

the Court of Appea ls and does not include the f iling date

. 1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 TED R. CASTI LLO , 3 Pl ai nti ff

-Appe llant, 4 v

. N O. 33, 153 5 RON ALD HOU VEN ER, BILLIE JO, 6 HOUVENE R, and LESL IE HOUVENE R, 7 D ef

en da nts -Appe lle es . 8 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 9 N an G. N ash , D ist ri ctJu dg e 10 T ed R. Ca sti llo 11 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 12 Pro Se 13 The Turn er Law Fi rm , LLC 14 Scott E. Tur

ner 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 The Garri so n Law Fi rm , LLC 17 Ja co b A

. G ar

ri son 18 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 19 for Appellees 20 MEM ORA ND UM OP INION2

1 Z AM ORA , Jud ge. 2 { 1} This appeal initially invol ved a dispu te betwe en neighbo rs re g ardi ng an 3 easem ent. [ DS 1] Prior to brief ing, however, t h e parties participated in vo luntary 4 m ed ia tio n and e xe cu te d am em or an dum of und er standi ng lay ing out ase ttl em en t t o 5 the ir dis put e. [ D S 8- 9] Mo re spe ci fi ca lly , tha t m em or an dum e sta bli she d am ethod by 6 w hic h th e pa rt ie s w er e to d et er m ine th e bo undari es of

the e as em en t and v ar iou s 7 ac tio ns tha t the part ie s w oul d take to re sol ve the ir dis put e re ga rd ing tha t e as em en t. 8 [RP 228- 29] T ha t m em or an dum a lso r ec ite d th at

“ [t ] he te rm s of

thi s m em or an dum 9 ag re em en t sh al l be m em or ia liz ed in a se ttl em ent ag reem en t and r el ea se , a nd 10 inc or por at ed int o [a co nte m

pla te d] a m en de d j udgm en t. ” [I d. ] D ur ing the pr oc es s of 11 ne got ia tin g th e language of th at se ttl em en t a gr ee m en t, adis put e ar ose be tw ee n th e 12 pa rt ie s r eg ar din g th e m eani ng and e nf or ce ab ili ty

of the m em or an dum

of 13 understandi ng. [D S 9] Eventually , this Court rem anded the case back to the district 14 court s o t h at t h e parties could get a ruling on whether or not the m em orandum wa s 15 ane nf

or ce ab le c ontra ct

. [ D S 10] T he dis tr ic t c ourt answ er ed tha t qu es tio n inthe 1 6 af fi rmat i v e, an dPl ai n t i ff

b ro u g h tt h i s s ec o n dap p ea l fr o m t h at co u rt . [ Id .] 17 { 2} In this s ec o n d appeal, Plaintiff’ s supp lem ental docketing statem ent asserted 18 iss ue s r el at ed

both to the m em or an dum of und er standi ng and i ssu es a ri sin g ou t of the 19 earl ie r tr ia l tha t w as the sub j ec t of tha t m em or an dum

. [S D S 10- 28] O ur m ost r ec en t3

1 ca le ndar not ic e pr opos ed to af fi rm the dis tr ic t co urt’ s r

uli ng r eg ar din g th e 2 m em orandum

and also propo sed that issu es relate d to the prior t ri al we re r endered 3 m oot bythe parties’ settlem ent of their underly ing di spute. [3CN 2] Plaintiff has since 4 fi le d am em or an dum

in oppo sit ion to sum

m ar y dis posi tio n and a l et te r to the Co urt, 5 both of w hic h a sse rt

P la int if f’ s dis ag re em en t w iththi s C ourt’ s pr opos ed dis posi tio n 6 as w el l a s vari ous iss ue s ari sin g ov er th e en tir e co ur se of thi s li tig at ion

. H av ing 7 c o n s i d e r e dP l a i n t i f

f ’s f i l i n g s i n t h i s C o u rt , w e a r e u np e r s u a d e da n dn o w a f f i rm. 8 { 3} W ithr eg ar d to Pl ai nti ff ’ s ar gum en t tha t the m em or an dum w as not ac ontra ct , 9 Pl ai nti ff

a rg ue s th at

he did no t in te nd f

or it to be a n a gr ee m en t, tha t i t do es not 10 “ ind ic at e tha t it is an a gr ee m en t no r tha t i t i s bi ndi ng, ” tha t i t w as not sup porte d by 11 an offer , an acceptance , m utual agreem ent, and consi deration [MIO ¶ 2], an d that 12 “ [a ] n a gr ee m en t ha s ne ve r be en re ac he d” [L T R ¶ 7]

. P la int if

fs a rg um en t onthi s po int , 13 how ev er , c onsi sts e nti re ly of the und ev el ope d a sse rt ion s ju st q uot ed

. Apa rt

f ro m 14 sim ply rea sserting his opini on that th e m em oran d u m of understandin g is not an 15 en fo rc ea

ble co ntr ac t, Pl ai nti ff doe s not ex pla in how the fa ct s of thi s ca se or the 16 ap pl ic ab le law ca n l ead to th e co nc lu si on he wou ld li ke fro m th is Co ur t. See State v. 17 M ondragon , 1988-NMC A- 027, ¶ 10, 107 N. M. 421, 759 P. 2d 1003 ( stating that “ [a] 18 pa rty r es pond ing to a sum

m ar y ca le ndar noti ce m

ust co m e fo rw ar d and s pe ci fi ca lly 19 poi nt o ut e rr or s of

law a nd f

act , ” an d th e re pe tit ionof e ar lie r ar gum en ts d oe s no t4

1 fu lfi ll th is req ui rem en t), superseded by statute on other ground s as stated in Sta te v. 2 H arr is , 201 3-NMCA-0 31, ¶ 3, 297 P

. 3d 3 74. W e, the re fo re , hol d th at the 3 m em or an dum

of und er standi ng c onsi sts of a n a cc ep te d of

fe r to s et tle the part ie s’ 4 dis put es . T he doc um en t, it se lf , w hic h is sig ne d by

the part ie s, c onsi st s of v al idl y 5 ex ch an ge d pr om ise s by the part ie s to pe rf

orm spe ci fi c ac tio ns i n c onsi de ra tio n of one 6 an oth er ’ s per fo rm an ce of the ir m utu al ly a ssum ed

obl iga tio ns. A s su ch , the 7 m em or an du m is an en fo rcea b l e c o n tra ct

. Se e Str ausb er g v . L aure l H

ea lth ca re 8 Providers, L

LC , 2013 -N MSC- 032, ¶ 42, 304 P. 3d 409 (noting that proof of a contract 9 is accom

plish ed by

a showing that “ the contract is fac tually suppo rted b y an offer , an 10 ac ce ptanc e, c onsi de ratio n, a nd m utu al as se nt” (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks and c ita tio n 11 om it te d) ). 12 { 4} Plaintiff also asserts that “ De fendant’ s assertion before the district court that 13

. . . Pl ai nti ff br ea ch ed the te rm s of the [m em or an dum of unde rs tandi ng] by fa ili ng t o 14 obtain th e survey is fraudulent.” [MIO ¶ 3 ] Although it appears fr om the rec ord that 15 De fendants m ay

have presented evidence that Plaintiff did no t o b t ai n a survey [RP 16 223, 237 , 244 -4 8] , a nd o ur c al en da r not ic e m ad e re fe re nc e to De fe ndants ’ a sse rt ion s 17 in tha t r eg ar d [ 3C N 4- 5] , the quest ionof w he the r Pl ai nti ff

did so o r not

is not 18 ult im at el y re le va nt to the que sti on a t hand, w hic h is sol el y w he the r the m em or an dum 19 is an en fo rcea bl e co nt ract

.5

1 { 5} The rem ainder of the issues asserted by Plaintiff in his m em orandum and letter 2 i n v o l v e ma t t er s n o tas s er t ed i n h i s d o ck et i n g s t at emen t . We c o n s t ru e P l ai n t i ff ’s 3 as se rt ionof

the se iss ue s a s am oti on t o a m en d hi s do ck et ing st at em en t to r ai se 4 ad dit ion al iss es . I n or de r to s howgoo d c au se f or our a llo w an ce of

a n a m en dm en t t o 5 a doc ke tin g st at em en t, a n a ppe llant m

ust es ta bli sh: (1 ) tha t the m oti on i s ti m el y , ( 2) 6 tha t the ne w iss ue s to be r ai se d w er e ei the r (a ) pr ope rl y pre se rv ed

be lowor

( b) 7 allowed to be ra ised for the first tim e on appeal, and (3) that the issue s raised ar e 8 vi ab le

. Sta te v . M

oore , 19 89 -NMCA- 07 3, ¶ 4 2, 1 09 N.M. 11 9, 7 82 P.2d 91 , overruled 9 on oth er grou nds by Sta te v. Sal gado , 1991 -N MC A -0 44, ¶ 2, 112 N

. M. 537, 817 P

. 2d 10 730. 11 { 6} The issues that Plaintiff seeks to r aise in this appeal, however , are not viable. 12 Many of those issues in volv e or ar e based upon facts and assertions th at do not app ear 13 an yw he re in the r ec ord of th is cas e. [S ee MI O ¶ ¶ 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16; L T R ¶ 2] 14 Pl ai nti ff

doe s no t su gge st tha t the se iss ue s w er e put be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt, a nd, in 15 an y e ve nt, it is w el l- es ta

bli she d th at

“ [m ] at te rs out sid e the r ec or d pr es en t no iss ue f or 16 review .” Sta te v . R ey nolds , 199 0- N MC A -1 22, ¶ 16, 111 N .M. 26 3, 804 P. 2d 1 082. 17 Many other issues that Plaintiff seeks to rai s e i n volv e his prior trial in the district 1 8 co u rt . [ Se e M IO ¶¶5 , 6 , 7 , 1 3 , 1 4 , 1 7 ] Be ca u s e w e a re af fi rmin g t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 19 ru lin g th at

the m em or an du m

of und er standi ng c onst itu te s ava lid a nd e nf or ce ab le6

1 settlem ent of the claim s raised in that trial, however, any issues arising from

that trial 2 ar e r en d er ed m o o tb y t h e mem o ra n du m , i t s el f. [3 C N 2 ] An d , f i n al l y, Pl ai n t i ff

’s 3 rem aining issues are com pletely undevelop ed argum ents consis ting enti rely of bare 4 as se rt ion s th at

the m em or an dum

“ is b ei ng u se d .

. . to out sm ar t and s w ind le the 5 Pl ai nti ff

, ” and tha t the St at e “ ha s an oblig at ion to pro te ct its c iti ze ns f ro m f ra udul en t 6 use of the c ourts. ” [M IO 1, 15] I t i s no t the pr ope r ro le of thi s C ourt t o e nga ge in 7 sp ecu la ti on an d su rm is e to co ns tru ct an ap pe ll at e arg um en t for a par ty. See H eadley 8 v. Mor ga n Mgm t. Co rp. , 2 0 0 5

- N M C A

- 0 4 5 , ¶ 1 5 , 1 3 7 N

. M

. 3 3 9 , 1 1 0 P

. 3 d1 0 76 9 (declining to review undeveloped argum ents). 10 { 7} As t h e n ew i s s u es as s er t ed b y Pl ai n t i ff ar e n o tv i ab l e, w e d e n y Pl ai n t i ff ’s 11 m otion to am end his do cketing statem ent and affi rm t he order of the district court 12 hold ing th at the m em orandum of understandin g is valid andenforce able. 13 { 8} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

14 15 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e 16 WE CO NCUR:

17 18 JAM ES J. WEC HSLER , Jud ge7

1 2 STEP HEN G. FRENC H, Judge