1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r:

____

____ ____ ___ 3 Fi lin g D at e: June 18, 201 5 4 N O. 32, 958 5 UTTI ATHERT ON, LAURA JARAMIL LO, 6 JO HN DOE 1 -9 9, a nd J ANE DOE 1 -9 9, 7 Pl ai nti ff

s- Appe lle es , 8 an d 9 STATE OF NEW MEXI CO, ex rel ., 10 HECT OR H. BALDE RAS, Attor ney Gene ra l, 11 Pl ai nt iff

-Ap pe ll ee, 12 v. 13 MIC HAE L J. G OPIN , an unlicen sed N ew 14 Mexico attorn ey d/b/a LA W OF FIC ES 15 OF MICH AEL J . GOPI N, 16 Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.
17 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF DO ÑAAN A C OUN TY 18 Jam es T. Mart in, Distr ict Judge 19 Robert N . ( Tito) Me y er 20 Las C ru ces , NM1 Ke nneth L. Beal

2 Las C ru ces , NM 3 for Appellees 4 H ec tor H
. Ba lde ra s, A tto rn ey

G en er al 5 San ta Fe, NM 6 T ony a N oonan H er

ri ng, S pe ci al A ssi stant A tto rn ey G en er al 7 Re be cc a C. Br an ch , S pe ci al A ssi stant A tto rn ey G en er al 8 Is m ae l L
. Cam ac ho, S pe ci al A ssi stant A tto rn ey G en er al 9 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 10 for Appellee Attorney Ge neral 11 Care n I. Friedm an 12 San ta Fe, NM 13 Gore nce & O liveros, P. C. 14 Robert J. G orence 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 BUS TAM AN TE, Judge. 3 { 1} A f

t e r a n e e x e a t b o n d i s s e t , m a y a d i s t r i c t c o u rt e x e r c i s e i t s d i s c r e t ion to 4 inc re as e the a m ount of the bond ? T his is a m at te r of fi rs t im pr es sio n in N ewMe xic o. 5 To r esolve the issu e, we exam ine the param eters of the writ of ne e xeat, a little-used 6 wr it with origins datin g as far back as the tenth c entury . C onclud ing th at the district 7 co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n, we af fir m . 8 BACKGRO UND 9 { 2} T he pr es en t m at te r ste m s f ro m a201 1 j udgm en t a ga ins t M ic ha el J. G opi n 10 (D efendant) for

violatio ns of the NewMexico Unfa ir Pr actices A ct (U PA), NMS A 11 1978 , §§ 57-12-1 to - 26 ( 1967 , as am ended throug h 200 9). “ The j udgm ent included 12 tr eb le da m ag e aw ar ds i n f av or of tw el ve ind ivi dua l [p ] la int if fs tot al ing $21 6, 222. 57, 13 $757 , 358. 56 i n f

av or of the N ewMe xic o A tto rn ey G en er al a s re stitut ionf

or 110 14 co ns um ers , and $1 ,57 0,0 00 in civ il p e n a lt ie s i n fa vo r of th e Att or ne y

Gene ral .” 15 A the rto n v. G opi n (

A the rto n I

), 20 15 -NMCA- 00 3, ¶ 2 , 34 0 P .3d63 0, cert. gran ted , 16 2014 -N MC E RT -0 12, 344 P
. 3d 9 88. T he de ta ils le ad ing to the j udgm en t are se t ou t 17 in th is Co ur t ’s Opi ni on in th e ap pe al of t ha t ju dg m en t. Id

. ¶ ¶ 5- 17. Be ca

use tho se 18 details are not critical to the issu e before us on th is appeal, w e do not repeat them 19 he re . It suf

fi ce s to say tha t af

te r en tr y of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n A the rto n I

, the district2

1 cour t issue d aw ri t of

ne e xe at , the sub se que nt a lte ratio n of w hic h is the onl y

iss ue 2 be fo re u s i n t hi s ap pe al
. 3 { 3} T he A tto rn ey

G en er al fil ed an appl ic at ionf or w ri t of ne e xe at on J anua ry

3, 4 2012 , le ss tha n a

m onth a ft er

e ntr y of the j udgm en t. T he ap plicatio n r eque ste d th e 5 dis tri ct c ourt t o e nte r a w ri t “ w ith out a dvanc e not ic e to D ef en da nt, ” ba rr ing 6 De fend an t from

leaving the State of N ewMexico, r em ovin g any assets from

Ne w 7 Me xic o, a nd “ hid ing , spe ndi ng, or dis posi ng o f his pe rs ona l a sse ts, or th e as se ts o f 8 the bus ine ss, pe ndi ng f urthe r or de r of

[ the distr ic t c ] ourt. ” A he ar ing w as he ld o n 9 January

5, 2012. A t the hearing, the district court stated that “ the At torney Ge neral 10 ha s est ab lis he d good cause to bel ie ve tha t [D ef en da nt] m ay be ab out to re m ove a sse ts 11 from the j urisdictio n of the [district] court.” It ordere d Def endant to po st a ne exeat 12 bond in the a m ount

of $10 0, 000, w hic h was base d onthe sa le pr ic e of abui ldi ng 13 Defen da nt own edin New Mex ic o (t he So la no pro pe rty). 14 { 4} D ef

en da nt m ove d f

or r ec onsi de ratio n of the ne ex ea t bond or de r, but fa ile d to 15 appear at the hearing on the m otion . F ollowing th e hear ing, the district court entered 16 finding s of fa ct . Sp ec ifically , it f ound that (1) “ [t] he evidence before the [c] ourt 17 es ta bli she s th at

D ef en da nt h as e nga ge d in
. . . c om ple x f inanc ia l transa ct ion [s ] f

or the 18 purpos e of preventing collection of this judgm ent[;] ” (2) “ De fendant has dissi pated 1 9 a s s e t s du r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h i s c a s e , i n c l u d i n g t h e s a l e o f [ t h e S o l a n o ] p r ope rt y3

1 loc at ed in L as Cr uc es , N ewMe xic o[ ;] ” an d ( 3) “ [a ] t the January 5, 201 2[ , ] he ar ing , 2 D ef en da nt t es tif

ie d un de r oa th tha t he w oul d a tte nd all fu tur e heari ngs in this c as e an d 3 wou l d n o t fl ee the j urisdictio n.” I t also found that “ [m ] ore than [thirty ] day s has 4 passed since the [c] ourt ordered [D ] efendant t o post a bond with the [c] ourt.” B ased 5 on the se an d oth er fi ndi ngs, the dis tr ic t co urt co nc lud ed that “ a bond

in the a m ount 6 of $500,000 , which represents approxim ately 2 5 % o f th e total j udgm ent entered 7 ag ai nst [ D ] ef en da nt, is ap pr opr ia te to pre ve nt fur the r dis sip at ion of as se ts w ith in the 8 j uris d i ct i on of the [c] ourt and to secure [D ] efendant’ s appearance at all future 9 proceedings.” 10 { 5} On March 20, 2012 , the district c ourt issued a tem porary restraini n g o rd er 11 en j oin ing D ef

en da nt f ro m , a m ong oth er

thi ngs, r em ovi ng any

a sse ts o w ne d by

him 12 pe rs ona lly

or ow ne d by

the law of

fi ces of Mi ch ae l J. G opi n f

ro m N ewMe xic o. 13 De fendant then failed to appear for a Marc h 27, 2012 , hearing and the dis trict court 14 iss ue d a n or de r to s howc au se w hy he sho uld

not be he ld i n c ont em

pt f or f ai lur e to 15 ap pe ar . T he sho w c au se he ar ing w as sc he dul ed f or May 16, 201 2. Me an w hil e, the ne 16 ex ea t bo nd o rd er

f or abon d of $5 00 ,000 w as iss ue d onApr il 24, 201 2. D ef en da nt 17 failed to post the bond and failed to appear at the May 16, 2012, hearing. T he district 18 co urt the n e nte re d abe nc h w ar rant f or his a rr es t and i nc re as ed

the bon d to $1, 000, 000 19 ($ 500, 000 fo r the ne e xe at bon d and $ 500, 000 fo r fa ilure to ap pe ar at th e May 16,4

1 2 0 1 2 , h ea ri n g ). De fe n d an t w a s a rr es t edan dp u ti njai l . P u rs u an tt o De fe n d an t ’s 2 em er ge nc y

m oti on, the dis tr ic t c ourt qu as he d th e be nc h w ar rant and r ed

uc ed the ne 3 e x e a tb o n dt o $ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0
. De f e n d a n tp a i dt h a ts u m i n t o t h e c o u rtr e g i s t ry. 4 { 6} De fend an t does not appeal any of the fore goin g rulings or orders. Rather, 5 D ef en da nt o nly

appe al s an or de r inc re as ing the a m ount of the ne e xe at bond
. T his 6 or de r fo llo w ed

aF eb ru ar

y 27, 2013 , m oti on for inc re as e by the A tto rn ey

G en er al in 7 w hic h th e A tto rn ey

G en er al a lle ge d th at

D ef en da nt “ co nti nue [d ] to dis sip at e his 8 as se ts f ro m N ewMe xic o. ” D ef

en da nt fi le d re spon siv e ple ad ing s, an d ahe ar ing on the 9 m otion wa s held on April 30, 2013 . T he district court found th at “ De fendant’ s [r] eal 10 [e ] sta te [ c] ontra ct

[ fo r sa le of

the S olano p ro pe rty ] is ana sse t tha t D efendant 11 co nti nue s to dis sip at e fr om the [S ] ta te of N ew Me xic o” an d or de re d D ef en da nt t o po st 12 an ad di ti on al $1 20 ,00 0 a s p art of t he ne ex eat bo nd
. 13 DISC US SION 14 Th e Wr it of

N e Ex ea t 15 { 7} Se ct ion57- 12- 17 o f the U PA pe rm its the at tor ne y ge ne ra l t o m ove f

or aw ri t 16 of ne e xe at “ [w ] he ne ve r the a tto rn ey ge ne ra l ha s r ea sona

ble be lie f tha t an y . . . pe rs on 17 [v iol at ing the U PA ] is ab out to re m ove him se lf

f ro m the [ S] ta te of

N ewMe xic o, or 18 is a bout to re m ove his pr ope rty

or a sse ts f ro m the [ S] ta te of

N ewMe xic o. ” U sin g th e 19 w ri t, “ the c ourt m ay

f or bid a ny suc h pe rs on fr om le av ing the [S ] ta te of N ewMe xic o,5

1 or r em ovi ng h is p ro pe rty or a sse ts f ro m the [ S] ta te of

N ewMex ic o un ti l a 2 determ ination of the issues [alleged und er the U PA ] has been m ade.” Id

. T he re a re no 3 cas es in New Mex ic o c on st ru in g t he ne ex eat pr ov is io ns in th e UPA. See §§ 5 7- 12- 17 4 to -20 . Thu s t he qu es ti on s p res en te d h ere a re m at te rs of f irs t i m pr es si on . 5 { 8} A lth oughthe part ie s a ppe ar to ag re e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s auth or ity to i ssu e 6 the w ri t ari se s from th e UP A , “ the w ri t of ne e xe at w as not c re at ed , nor

a re it s 7 functions d ef

i n ed b y statute.” Ni

xo n v . Ni xo n , 158 N. W .2d 919, 922 (W is. 1968). 8 He nce, “ [a] s to the general functions of the wr it and the ground s upon which it m ay 9 issue, resort m

ust be had to p rinciples of the com m on law. ” Id

. 10 { 9} T he w ri t of ne exe at ha s anc ie nt o ri gin s. “ T he f or er unne r of thi s w ri t i n anc ie nt 11 co m m on l awappe ar s to ha ve be enaw ri t de securi tat em inv en ie nda which w as 12 de sig ne d to pr ev en t m em be rs of the c le rg y

in E ngl an d f

ro m de pa rting the r ea lm

to 13 visit the Papal See. It wa s thus lim ited in use to e cclesiast i cs o n ly .” Na t’l Aut o. & 14 Cas. Ins. Co. v . Q ueck , 405 P. 2d 905, 909 (A riz. Ct. App. 1965 ). “ Som etim e betwe en 15 the reign of John (119 9-1216 ), and Edw ard I ( 1272 -1307 ),
. . . t he wr it of ne e xe at 16 re gno wa s first used as a high prerogative writ .
. . a pplied to subjects and foreigners 17 alike, to prevent them from leaving the king dom .” Id

. By the se ve nte en th c en tur

y , use 18 of th e wri t o f ne ex eat ha d e vo lv edto en co m pa s s e n f o rcem en t o f pr iv at e ri gh ts . Id

. 19 at 910 ; se e als o B ev er idg e v. B ev er idg e , 507 A. 2d 502, 504 (Conn . App. Ct. 1986 ).6

1 { 10} As used today , “ [t] he wr it of ne e xe at is ane qui ta

ble r em edy

in the na tur e of 2 ba il at co m

m on law
. It is dir ec te d to the she ri ff , co m m an din g hi m

to co m m it the party 3 to p ri son unt il he giv es se curi ty not to le av e the j ur isd ic tio n w ith out pe rm iss ionof

the 4 court.” Th e W

rit of N e E xe at , 29 H arv. L. Rev. 206, 206 (191 5) (footnotes om itted). 5 “ The purposes of the w rit are to insu re c om pliance with orders and decre es of court 6 an d t o e na bl e th e co ur t t o re ta in juri sd ic ti on of t he pa rty agai ns t wh om it is is su ed .” 7 65 C.J.S. Ne E

xe at § 2 ( 2015 ); Te dard

s v . A uty , 557 A
. 2d 1 030, 103 4 ( N
. J. S upe r. Ct
. 8 App. Div. 1 9 8 9 ) (“ The purpose of a writ of ne e xe at i s t o co m

p el a d ef en d an t ’s 9 phy sic al appe ar an ce in co urt w he n r equir ed
. ”)
. T he re a re “ tw o re qui re m en ts fo r the 10 iss ua nc e of

the w ri t: (1 ) a thr ea te ne d de pa rt ur e of the de fe ndant [ or

r em ov al of 11 pr ope rty ] fr om the j ur isd ic tio n; an d (2 ) a re sul tin g de fe at of the co urt’ s pow er to giv e 12 ef fe ct ive in pe rs ona m

r el ie f due to its los s of c ontro l ov er the de fe ndant’ s pe rs on [ or 13 property ] .” U

nit ed Sta tes v . R obbi ns , 235 F
. S upp. 353 , 356 ( E
. D
. A rk
. 196 4) ; see § 14 57- 12- 17; 57 A m . Ju r. 2d Ne E xe at § 9 ( 2015 ) (“ [W ] he re the r em ova l of pr ope rty 1 5 w o u l dd e f

e a tt h e p u r

p o s e o f a n e e x e a t w r i t , t h e o r d e r i n t h e wr i tmay d e t a i n p r o p e rt y, 16 as well as t he pe rs on .”). 17 { 11} These r equirem ents circum scribe the use of a wr it of ne exeat: “ In the absence 18 of [ a thr ea t to ab sc ond] , the w ri t m ay not be use d a s af orm [] of c oe rc ing paym en t of 19 a d eb t, n o m at te r ho w jus t, no r as a fo rm [] of pu ni sh m en t, n o m at te r ho w des erv ed .”7

1 Te dard s , 5 57 A
. 2d a t 10 34. Mo re ove r, be ca use “ [t ] he w ri t of

ne e xe at ope rate s in 2 restraint of per sonal lib erty [, i] t is to be granted with cautio n [and] continu ed in force 3 with caution.” Cohen v. C ohen , 64 N. E
. 2d 6 89, 693 ( Ma ss. 194 6) ; Elkay Steel Co. v

. 4 Co lli ns , 141 A
. 2d 212, 218 (P a. 1958 ) (s ta tin g tha t “ use an d em plo ym en t [o f the w ri t] 5 m ust be caref

ully circum scribed within appropriate lim its and its issuance exercised 6 w ithgr ea t c au tio n and o nly in suc h in stanc es w he re it cl ea rl y a nd u nm ist ak ab ly 7 ap pl ie s” ). “ As an ad

jun ctto th e tr ia l co ur t’s eq ui tabl e juri sd ic ti on , th e is su an ce, t erm s, 8 an d i m pl em en ta ti on of wri ts of n e ex eat li e w i t h i n th e co ur t’s s ou nd di sc ret io n.” 9 G re done v . G re done , 36 1 A.2 d 1 76 , 18 0 (D.C . 19 76 ). 10 { 12} O nc e the pur

pose of the w ri t and co ndi tio ns o f the bon d have be enf ulf ill ed , the 11 writ an d t he bo nd are d is ch arg ed
. M ayv . M ay , 91 S. E
. 687, 688 ( G a. 191 7) ( sta tin g 12 tha t w he n the de fe ndant did al l tha t he w as “ obl iga te d to do i n hi s bo nd; a nd, the bon d 13 ha vin g di sc ha rg ed

a ll the of fi ce s for w hic h it wa s inte nde d, [the bond ] sho uld ha ve 14 be en can cel edas f

un ctus of fic io , an d th e su ret ie s d is ch arg ed ”); 27 A C.J.S. Divorce 15 § 19 8 ( 2015 ) (“ Upon the f ulf ill m en t of the pur pose of the w ri t and the c ondi tio ns o f 16 the bond , . . . the w ri t and the bon d are f unc tus of fi ci o. ” (f ootnot es om itt ed )) ; Black’ s 17 Law D icti onar

y 787 (1 0the d. 201 4) ( de fi nin g “ fun ct us o ffi ci o ” as “ without further 18 authorityor legal competence because the duties and function s of the original 19 co m m iss ionha ve be enf

ull y a cc om pli she d” ). O n th e oth er

hand , f ai lur e to c om

ply8

1 wit h t he co nd it io ns of a ne ex eat bo nd res ul ts in for fei tu re o f th e b on d. See 27A C. J.S. 2 Di vo r ce § 1 9 8 ( “ A f

a i l u r e t o m e e tt h e c o n d i t i o n s o f an e e x e a tb o n df

o r f e i t [ s ] t he 3 en tir e bond
. ”) ; Queck, 405 P. 2d at 912 (stating that wher e the defe ndant failed to stay 4 w ith in the j ur isd ic tio n, the bond w as fo rf ei te d)
. A s w ith the iss ua nc e of a w ri t of ne 5 ex ea t, “ the m at te r of

dis ch ar ge . . . on a [n ] e ex ea t bond re sts in the sound d isc re tio n 6 of the court.” Coursen v. Coursen , 252 A
. 2d 7 38, 739 (N.J. Su pe r. Ct
. App. D iv. 7 19 69 ). De fend ant’s A rgum ents 8 { 13} De fendant m akes four ar gum ents. Fir st, he argues that the district court lacked 9 j ur isd ic tio n to or de r aninc re as e in the ne e xe at bon d. S ec ond, he m ai nta ins that the 10 ne exeat bond vio lated the UP A. T hird, D efendant contends th at there w as 11 insufficient evidence to support increasing the bond . F inally , he argues that he wa s 12 deprived of his right to due proce ss of law when the district court ordered the ne exeat 13 bo nd in crea se d. We add res s t he se arg um en ts in tu rn . 14 1. Jurisdiction t o Increase t he Bon d 15 { 14} D ef

en da nt arg ue s f

ir st tha t the dis tr ic t co ur t di d no t have j ur isd ic tio n to 16 inc re as e the a m ount

of the bon d be cau se a n a

ppe al w as pe ndi ng i n th e unde rl y ing 17 m atter (

A the rto n I

). W e rev ie w su ch juri sd ic ti on al qu es ti on s d e n ov o. Sm ith v . Ci ty 18 of Sa nt a Fe , 2007 -N MSC- 055, ¶ 10, 142 N .M. 786, 171 P. 3d 300. D efendant relies 19 on the general rule “ th at t h e filin g of a proper notice of appeal divests the district9

1 court of j urisdictio n and transfers j urisdictio n to the a ppellate court.” Murken v. Solv2 E x Co rp. , 2006 -N MCA -064, ¶ 9, 139 N .M. 625, 136 P. 3d 1035. Recognizing t h at 3 “ the r ule is not abs olu te , as it doe s not pre ve nt the dis tr ic t cour t fr om ta kin g a ct ion s 4 to c arry out or enforce the ju d g m ent[,] ” id

. (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n 5 om itt ed ), D ef

en da nt arg ue s th at

“ inc re as ing the am ount

of the ne e xe at

bon d by 6 $1 20 ,00 0 d oe s n ot en ab le th e [d is tri ct ] co ur t t o carry ou t o r en fo rce t he jud gm en t.” 7 Ra the r, he a rg ue s, the inc re as e in the bon d a m ount was a m odi fi ca tio n of the 8 j udg m en t, a n a ct

not w ith in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j ur isd ic tio n on ce the j udgm en t i s 9 ap pe al ed
. See Hall v. Hal l, 1 99 2- NMCA-0 97 , ¶ 38 , 1 14 N.M. 37 8, 83 8 P.2 d 9 95 (“ As 10 a general rule, while a co u rt h as j urisdictio n after the j udgm ent to enforce that 11 j udgm ent, it lac ks jurisdiction to m odify the j udgm ent except u n der lim ited 12 ci rcu m st an ces .”). 13 { 15} D ef

en da nt’ s ar gum en t i gnor es the ba sic na tur e of the w ri t. Ane e xe at

bon d 14 or de r “ is n ot i n it se lf

a r em edy . I t i s am eans t o e ff ec tua te ar em edy

by ke ep ing aparty 15 w ith in the j ur isd ic tio n of the c ourt. ” 57 A m . Jur
. 2d Ne E xe at § 2 ( 2015 ). T he w ri t i s 16 no t part of

th e jud gm en t. Id

. I t f oll ow s th at

m odi fi ca tio n of

abon d a m ount

is not a kin 17 to m od ifi cat io n o f a jud gm en t. 18 { 16} T o the e x t e n tt h a tD e f e n d a n ta r g u e s t h a tt h e n e e x e a tb o n do r d e r i s n ot 19 co llate ra l t o th e unde rl y ing j udgm en t bec au se “ [t ] he re can be no iss ua nc e of aw ri t of10

1 ne exeat if ther e is no viol ation of the [UP A, ] ” w e disagree. Issuance of the w rit does 2 not depend on an actual violatio n of the UP A. Sec tion 5 7-12-17 perm its the issu ance 3 of a w ri t of ne ex ea t w he n th e “ at tor ne y ge ne ra l ha s reason able belief tha t any pe rs on 4 is us in g o r is ab ou t t o u se an y m et ho d, act or p ract ic e whi ch is de cl ared by the [UPA] 5 to b e unl aw fu l” a nd “ reason able belief that any su chpe rs on i s a bout to re m ove 6 him se lf f ro m the [ S] ta te of

N ewMe xic o, or

is ab out to re m ove his pr ope rty or a sse ts 7 from the [S] tate of Ne w Me xico.” Id

. (em phasis add ed). This language indicates that 8 the L eg isl at

ur e co nte m

pla te d is suanc e of the w ri t ev enbe fo re e ntr y of j udgm en t on 9 the U PAc la im s. T he w ri t i s thus an ai d to ef fe ct ing a re m edy fo r U PAvio la tio ns, but 10 it is n ot i tse lf

ar em edy . I t i s ne ce ssari ly c oll at er al to an y

U PAj udgm en t tha t m ay

be 11 en te red
. 12 { 17} Fi na lly , D ef

en da nt arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt l ost

j ur isdic ti on to e nte r the 13 w ri t on ce j udgm en t w as e nte re d bec au se Se ct ion 57- 12- 17 p ro vid es f or iss ua nc e of 14 the wr it “ until a deter

m ination of the issues has been m ade.” W e do not agree. Given 15 the purpos es of the w rit of ne exea t, it does not m ake sense to c onstrue the statute as 16 de pr ivi ng the dis tr ic t c ourt of j ur isd ic tio n ov er

thi s c oll at er al m at te r w hil e a j udgm en t 17 is o n a

ppe al
. I nst ea d, w e int er

pr et t hi s langua ge to pe rm it co nti nua tio n of the w ri t 18 unt il the iss ue s are c om ple te ly de te rm ine d, m ean in g th at j udgm en t i s e ith er

pa id o r 19 di sm is se d. Se e Ta

foy a v . G arc ia , 1871-NMS C-003, ¶ 5, 1 N. M. 480 (“ The spirit, as11

1 we ll as the letter of the statute, m ust be respected; and wher e the w hole context o f a 2 law de m onstrate s aparti cu lar int en t i n th e [L ] eg isl at

ur e to e ff ec t a c er ta in o bj ec t, 3 som e de gr ee of im

pli ca tio n m ay be c al le d into ai d th at int en t[
. ] ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n 4 m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ))
. W e co nc lud e tha t the m odi fi ca tio n of the ne e xe at bon d 5 or de r he re w as w ith in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j ur isd ic tio n to e nf or ce it s j udgm en t i n 6 A the rto n I

no twi th st an di ng th e ap pe al of t ha t ju dg m en t. 7 2. The B ond C onform s to the Statu te 8 { 18} D ef

en da nt ne xt arg ue s th at

iss ua nc e of

abon d or de r co ndi tio ne d onr ef ra ini ng 9 fr om dis sip at ing a sse ts i s c on tra ry to the te rm s of

the U PA
. H e dis tin gui she s aw ri t 10 of ne e xe at f ro m a ne ex ea t bond and

a rg ue s th at

w he re as S ec tio n 57 -1 2- 17 p er m its 11 en tr y of a w ri t to pr ev en t dis sip at ion , Se ct ion 57- 12- 18 lim its ne e xe at bon ds t o th ose 12 conditi oned on the defendant’ s appearance in court. Se ction 57 -1 2 -1 8 s tates that 13 “ [t] he court m ay

require any

. . . person [alleged to violate the UPA ] to post a ne exeat 14 bond conditio ned on su ch persons [person’s] appearance at all hearings on the m atter 15 at iss ue . ” (T hir d a lte ratio n inor igi na l)
. D ef en da nt’ s arg um en t pr es en ts a que sti on o f 16 st atut or y

co ns tru ct io n wh ic h we r ev ie w de n ov o. H ovet v. A lls tat e In s. Co

. , 200 4- 17 NMSC -0 10 , ¶ 10 , 13 5 N.M. 3 97 , 89 P.3d 69
. 18 { 19} “ Inc onstru ing astatut e, our c ha rg e is to de te rm ine a nd g ive e ff ec t t o th e 19 L e gi sl at

ur e ’ s intent.” Ma r b o b En er g y Co r p . v . N .M. Oi l Co n s er va tion Comm’n , 200 9-12

1 N MS C- 013, ¶

9, 146 N
. M. 24, 206 P. 3d 1 35. Whe re astatut e tou ch es a n is sue in the 2 co m m on law, we i nt erp ret th e st atut e’s la ng ua ge in th e co nt ex t o f th atlaw. Sims v. 3 Si ms , 199 6- N MS C- 078, ¶ 23 , 122 N
. M. 618 , 930 P
. 2d 1 53. W e as sum e tha t the 4 Le gisla t ure w as “ inform ed about the exist ing comm on law before the statute was 5 en ac t ed ,” id. ¶

24, a nd i nte rp re t a

statut e “ as sup planti ng the c om m on l awonl y

if 6 there is an explicit indication that the [ L] egislature so intend ed.” Id

. ¶ 22. “ T his r

ule 7 of c onstru ct ionis a re co gni tio n th at a ny lawis pa sse d aga ins t the ba ck gr ound of a ll 8 the law in ef

fe ct a t the ti m e. I f no a spe ct of th e ba ck gr ound

of lawis cl earl y 9 abrogated, it is presum ed to be consist ent with, if n o t i n corporated into, new 10 legislation .” Id

. ¶ 24
. 11 { 20} A s di sc uss ed

above , a t com

m on law , a bond is an inhe re nt p ar t of aw ri t of ne 1 2 e x e a t . P u ta n o t h e r

w a y, t h e w r i ti t s e l f c o n t e mp l a t e s
— i f n o tr e qu i r e s
— ab o n d
. 5 7 A m. 13 Jur
. 2d Ne E

xe at § 2 (“ A w ri t of ne ex ea t m ay be iss ue d to se cure to the pla int if f the 14 pr es en ce of

the de fe ndant w ith in the li m its of the c ourt’ s j ur isd ic ti on unt il the 15 satisfaction of the plaintiff’ s equit ab l e cl ai m or unt il a bo nd, or e qui tab le bai l, is 16 giv en fo r that pu rpos e .” (e m p h as i s ad d ed ) ( fo o t n o t e o m i t t ed )) . De fe n d an t ’s 17 dis tin ct ion be tw ee n a wr it of ne ex ea t and a ne exe at bon d is , the re fo re , spe ci ous. In 18 ad dit ion , “ [h ] ist or ic al ly , w he re the re m ova l of pro pe rty w oul d def ea t the pur

pose of 19 a ne e xe at

w ri t, the or de r in the w ri t m ay de ta in p ro pe rty , a s w el l a s th e pe rs on. ” 5713

1 A m . Jur
. 2d Ne E

xe at § 9. H en ce , a t c om

m on l aw , ane e xe at

w ri t, inc lud ing abon d, 2 m ay be conditi oned on preservation of ass ets. A lthou gh Section 57-12 -18 provid es 3 for an i n s t an ce in w hich a bondm ay be required, it does not prohibit bond s related 4 to a sse ts o r pr ope rty . T he re fo re , sin ce the statut e is sil en t a s to the se bon ds, the statut e 5 doe s n o t ab r o g a t e t h e c o m m o n l a w . I s s u a n c e o f t h e b o n d o r d e r c o n d i t ion edon 6 pr es erv at io n o f as se ts was n ot co nt rary to t he UPA. 7 3. Suf

ficienc y of the Evidenc e 8 { 21} N ex t, D ef

en da nt ar gue s that

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to inc re as e the bon d 9 am ount w as not supp orte d by suf fi ci en t e vid en ce . H e al le ge s th re e w ay s inw hic h th e 10 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r w as er ro r. Fi rs t, he a rg ue s th at

be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ir st 11 ne e xe at

bon d or de r of $100 , 000 w as ba se d on the va lue of the S olano p ro pe rty , the 12 subs eque nt i nc re as e of the bon d or de r ba se d onar ea l e sta te c ontra ct r el at ed to the 13 sa m e pr ope rty

w as im pr ope r. Se co nd, he c ont en ds tha t the re w as no e vid en ce that he 14 had an ownership interest in the Solano property . T hird, he m aintains that th ere wa s 15 no evi de nc e tha t he had or w oul d di ssi pa te a sse ts i n N ewMe xic o. W e ad dr es s th es e 16 arg um en ts in tu rn . 17 { 22} T he funda m en ta l pre m ise of D ef en da nt’ s f ir st arg um en t i s th at

the a m ount

of 18 the bon d or de r m

ust be ba se d on the va lue of the pr ope rty he is a lle ge dly dis sip at ing 19 and that, theref

ore, the sam e property cannot ser ve twice as the basis for a bond order.14

1 It appe ar s th at

the pa rt ie s and the dis tr ic t c ourt sh ar ed thi s un de rs tandi ng o f the li m its 2 on the a m ount

of ane e xe at

bon d. Bu t the part ie s do not ci te a nd w e ha ve f ound no 3 au tho ri ty

sup portin g th is pr em ise
. Rathe r, som e au tho ri tie s st at e tha t the a m ount of 4 a ne e xe at

bon d is r el at ed

to the am ount of

the pla int if

f’ s in te re sts or

the j udgm en t. 5 Se e, e . g. , Pol ly J. Pri c e , Full F aith & Credit & the Equity Conflict , 84 V a. L
. Re v. 6 747, 801 (1 998) ( “ T he w ri t w as c om m onl y dir ec te d to ashe ri ff

to re qui re the 7 de fe ndant t o po st s uf

fi ci en t se curi ty

that he w oul d no t de pa rt the te rri to ry

w ith out 8 le av e of

the co urt, in ana m ount suf fi ci en t t o sa tis fy

the pla int if

f’ s in te re st, or

be 9 im pr iso ne d. ”) ; 57 A m . Jur
. 2d Ne E xe at § 26 ( 2015 ) (“ T he sum a sse sse d m

ust be 10 suf fi ci en t t o cove r not only the ex ist ing de bt b ut a lso c ost s and a r ea sona ble a m ount 11 of fu tur e int er es t ha vin g re ga rd to the pr oba ble dur at ionof

the sui t. ”) ; McN

amara v. 12 Dwy er , 7 P aige Ch. 239, 245 (N. Y. Ch. 1838) (holding that “ [t] he am ount in which 13 the de fe ndant i s he ld t o ba il uponthe [ n] e ex ea t shou ld the re fo re be r ed uc ed to $900 0; 14 as that w ill be suf

fi ci en t t o c ove r w ha t w ill pr obabl y be f ound due to the 15 co m pla inants , w ithint er es t and c ost s” ). O the r au tho riti es ap pear to en dor se abon d 16 based on an assessm ent of the am ount necessary to provid e the defe ndant a m aterial 17 inc en tiv e to re m ai n w ith in the j ur isd ic tio n and/ or r ef ra in f ro m dis sip at ing a sse ts 18 wit ho ut reg ard to th e am ou nt at is su e in th e u nd erl y in g a ct io n. Se e, e . g. , Elk ay Steel 19 Co

. , 141 A. 2d at 214 n.3 (order ing bo nd of $25,000 each f rom two defe ndants where15

1 the am ou nt in iss ue w as $60 , 165) ; G re done , 361 A
. 2d a t 17 9 ( or de ri ng b ond of 2 $1, 000 w he re tr ia l ul tim at el y r es ult ed in m one y

j udgm en ts a ga in st the de fe ndant 3 tot al ing ove r $13, 000)
. T hus, to the e xte nt tha t D ef en da nt arg ue s th at

the inc re as e of 4 the bon d w as im

pr ope r be ca

use it w as ba se d onthe sa m e pr ope rty use d a s aba sis f

or 5 the ini tia l bo nd, w e dis ag re e be ca use the a m ount of

the bon d ne ed

not ne ce ssari ly

be 6 t i e dt o t h e v a l u e o f

t h e p r o p e rt y. 7 { 23} D ef

en da nt di rect s u s t o Siravo v. Siravo , 670 S o. 2d 9 83, 985 ( Fl a. D ist
. Ct
. 8 App. 199 6) , in w hic h th e court sta te d that a w ri t i s no t “ a subs tit ute f or ac ont em pt, 9 inj unc tio n, or oth er en fo rc em en t or de r, w he re its pur pose is not to prev en t a p arty 10 fr om f le ei ng o r re m ovi ng a sse ts b ut, r athe r, to fo rce the party to post se curi ty , or 11 produce assets, that w ould be used to satisfy a j udgm ent.” But in that case, the court 12 al so e xpress ly s ta te d that ane e xe at

bon d is “ a va lua

ble r es our ce in the a rs en al of 13 rem edies available to a trial court in order to secure alim ony and supp ort.” Id

. T he 14 Siravo court found that a ne exeat bond was i m proper i n that case because there w as 15 no evidence o f th e d efendant’ s intent to flee the j urisdictio n and oth er r em edies, such 16 as co nt em

pt , were av ai labl e to en fo rce t he co ur t’s jud gm en t. Id

. W e int er

pr et the 17 co urt’ s st at em en ts t o indic at e tha t a ne e xe at bon d is ina

ppr opr ia te w he re it s onl

y 18 pur pose is to s ec ur e as se ts, rat he r th an to p re ve nt the de fe ndant f ro m f le ei ng o r 19 dis sip at ing a sse ts. W e de cl ine D ef en da nt’ s in vit at ionto int erp ret th e hol din g in16

1 Siravo as a bl an ke t p ro hi bi ti on ag ai ns t a n e ex eat bo nd as u se d i n t hi s ca se . 2 { 24} Ina ny c as e, the auth or iti es a gr ee on tw o po int s r el at ed to the bon d: tha t the 3 am ount of the bon d is w ith in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sc re tio n and tha t the bon d a m ount 4 m ay no t be ex ces si ve or o pp res si ve . G re done , 361 A
. 2d at 180 (“ A s ana dj unc t t o th e 5 tr ia l c ourt’ s e qui ta

ble j ur isd ic tio n, the iss ua nc e, te rm s, a nd i m ple m en ta tio n of

w ri ts 6 of ne e xe at lie w ith in the c ourt’ s so und dis cr et ion
. ”) ; Sta te v . B row ne , 142 S o. 247 , 7 250 (F la
. 193 2) ( “ E xc es siv e or unr ea sona

ble ba il shou ld n ev er

be re qui re d; as the w ri t 8 is a pur el y ci vi l writ , it sho uld not be a llo w ed

to be use d op pr es siv el y or in 9 unne ce ssary

vio la tio n of

the de fe ndant’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh t t o pe rs ona l fr ee dom to 10 go and com e as he m ay please. ”). The total bond am ount includin g the increase w as 11 $370 , 000, w el l un de r the tot al am ount of the j udgm en t of app ro xim at el y $2. 5 m ill ion
. 12 Furthe r, D ef

en da nt d oe s no t arg ue on a ppe al that the bon d a m ou nt is e xc es siv e or 13 oppr es siv e. W e dis ce rnno a buse of dis cr et ionin the bon d a m ount . 14 { 25} T his c onc lus ionle ad s us to D ef en da nt’ s se co nd an d thi rd ar gum en ts h av ing to 15 do w ithw he the r the re w as subs tanti al ev ide nc e tha t he ha s an ow ne rs hip int er es t i n 16 the Solano property

or that he wa s dissi pating assets from Ne w Me xico. T he district 17 co urt a

buse s it s di scret ion if

it e nte rs f ind ing s of

f ac t tha t are not

sup porte d by 18 su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. P er ki ns v . D ep ’t

of H um an S ervs . , 198 7- N MC A -1 48, ¶ 19, 106 19 N. M. 651, 748 P. 2d 24 (“ An abuse of discretion is established if the
. . . lower court17

1 ha s no t pr oc ee de d inthe m an ne r re qui re d by law , the or de r or d eci sio n is not 2 supp orted by

the findings , or the finding s are not supported by the evidence.” ). When 3 re vie w ing f

or sub stanti al e vid en ce , w e adhe re to the f oll ow ing pr inc ipl es : 4 If

sub stanti al ev ide nc e supp orts a tr ia l c ourt’ s c onc lus ionit w ill not be 5 distu rbed on appeal. S ubstant ial evidence is such r elevant evidence that 6 a re as ona

ble m ind w oul d f ind a de qua te to supp ort a

c on cl us ion. 7 E vid en ce is subs tanti al e ve n if it bare ly ti ps the sc al es in fav or of the 8 party

bearing the burden of proof. 9 Landavaz o v. Sanchez , 199 0- N MS C- 114, ¶ 7, 111 N
. M. 1 3 7, 802 P
. 2d 1 283 (c itatio ns 10 om it te d)
. 11 { 26} In addition , “ in deciding whether the finding has subs tantial supp ort, the c ourt 1 2 m u s t v i ew ev i d en ce i n t h e li g h tm o s tfa v o ra b l e t o s up p o rt t h e f i n d i n g [. ]” D uk

e Ci ty 13 Lu m be r C

o. v . N. M

. E nv tl. I m prov em en t B d. , 198 4- N MS C- 042, ¶ 12, 101 N
. M. 291 , 14 681 P. 2d 7 17. W e do n ot r ev ie w “ an y ev id en ce un favor ab le to the f ind ing ” an d do 15 “ not weigh conflicting evidence or deter m ine credibility

of w itnesses.” Id

. 16 { 27} De fendant does not dispu te that he owned the S o l ano property in Dec em

ber, 17 2011 a nd tha t he en te red in to ar ea l e sta te c ontra ct f or sa le of the pr ope rty

a nd 18 t r a n s f e rred hi s in te res t in th e pr op ert y to hi s wife on Decem be r 9, 20 11 , jus t d a ys 19 be fo re j udgm en t w as e nte re d in A the rto n I
. T he A tto rn ey G en er al at ta ch ed a co py of 20 the real e state contract to it s m o t i o n to increase the bond and copies o f a 21 “ m em or an dum

of r ea l e sta te c ontra ct ” an d th e tr an sf er doc um en t were ent er ed

int o17 D ef

en da nt d ir ec ts o ur

a tte nti on to an af

fi da vit fi le d wi th this Co urt, w hic h is 1 18 not part of the r ec or d pr ope r. W e do n ot c onsi de r ev ide nc e not r ev ie w ed in the f

ir st 19 in st an ce b y

th e d is tri ctco ur t. Sta te v . R om er o , 1975 -N MC A -0 17, ¶ 2, 87 N
. M. 279 , 20 532 P. 2d 2 08 ( “ Ma tte rs out sid e the r ec or d presen t no iss ue f or r ev ie w . ”)
. W e al so 21 de cl ine to co nsi de r doc um en ts ci te d by the A tto rn ey

G en er al that w er e not

part of the 22 reco rdbe lo w. Se e id. 18 1 evidence at the hear ing on the m otion to increase. 2 { 28} A s we unde rs tand it, D ef en da nt’ s arg um en t i s th at he c oul d no t be dis sip at ing 3 funds fr om

the sa le of

the S olano p ro pe rt

y be ca use he doe s no t cu rre ntl

yhave an 4 int er es t i n it
. T his a rg um en t i s un av ai lin g. Ba se d on the undi sput ed f ac ts, vie w ed

in 5 the light m ost favorable to the district court’s decision, we conclude that the district 6 court could reasonablyfind that the sale and transfer of the p roperty them selves 7 constitu ted dissi pation o f that asset. Since the r eal estate contra ct i ndicated that 8 pa y m en ts f

ro m the sa le w er e co nti nui ng a t the ti m e of the he ar ing on the m oti on t o 9 inc re as e, the dis tr ic t co urt’ s fi ndi ng tha t “ as se ts are c ont inu ing to be dis sip at ed f ro m 10 th e juri sd ic ti on of t hi s [c ]our t” is als o s up po rte d b y th e ev id en ce. 11 { 29} De fendan t al s o ap p ears to re ly on the fact that the property wa s sold before 12 en tr y of jud gm en t i n A the rto n I as evidence that the ne exea t order and bond were 13 im pr ope r. Bu t un de r Se ct ion57- 12- 17, e ntr y of aj udgm en t i s n ot a pr erequisi te to 14 iss ua nc e of the w ri t. H en ce , it w as not a n a buse of dis cr et ionf

or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o 15 co nsi de r the sa le of th e pr ope rty e ve n th oughit

oc curr ed be fo re the e ntr

y of the 16 j udgm en t and b ef

or e the appl ic at ionf

or w ri t of ne e xe at . 119

1 4. D ue P ro ce ss 2 { 30} Fi na lly , D ef

en da nt m ak es abr ie f ar gum en t tha t he w as de nie d th e due pr oc es s 3 of law a cc or de d hi m

by the N ewMe xic o and fe de ra l co nst itu tio ns be ca use he ha d no 4 oppo rt uni ty to be he ar d be fo re the ne e xe at bon d w as inc re as ed
. See U.S
. Co nst . 5 am en d. V ; N
. M. Co nst . a rt . I I, § 18
. D ef en da nt r el ie s on Jacobsen v. Jacobsen , 126 6 F. 2d 1 3, 14- 15 ( D
. C. Ci r. 194 2), f or the pr opos iti on tha t “ sin ce he ha d de nie d th e 7 al le gatio ns o f the [ m oti on f or inc re as e] , he w as f

urthe r en tit le d to af

ull he ar ing 8 [including ] a full oppo rtunity to introdu ce oral testim ony .” Ther e, the court held that 9 w he re “ [the de fe ndant] w as giv en no suc h oppo rt uni ty , c ont inu ing the w ri t [ ne e xe at ] 10 in f or ce de pr ive d hi m

of his li be rty

w ith out due proc ess of

law , in vio la tio n of

the 11 Fifth Am endm ent.” Id

. at 15. D ue pr oc es s is pr ovi de d w he n ade fe ndant h as “ tim el y 12 not ic e . . . ; a

r ea sona ble opp ortun ity

to [b e he ar d] ; a

r ea sona ble opp ortun ity

to 13 co nf ro nt an d c ro ss -ex am in e ad ve rs e wit ne ss es an d p res en t ev id en ce . . . ; 14 represe ntation by

counsel . .
. ; and a hearing before an im partial decisionm aker. ” In 15 re Pamel a A.G. , 2006-NMS C-019 , ¶ 12, 139 N. M. 459, 134 P. 3d 74 6 (internal 16 quot ation m arks and citation om itted). 17 { 31} De fendant acknowledges that this ar gum ent wa s not ra ised in the district court 18 an d, the re fo re , w as not pr es er ve d f or appe al
. G en er al ly , “ [d ] ue pr oc es s cla im s w ill not 19 be addressed when r aised for the fir st tim e on appeal.” State v. Martinez , 200 7-20

1 NMCA-1 60 , ¶ 4, 14 3 N.M. 9 6, 1 73 P.3d 18 . Defen da nt arg ue s t ha t n ev ert he le ss we 2 shou ld review this iss ue because “ it invo lves the public interest and the fundam ental 3 right[s] of D efendant.” See R u l e 1 2
- 2 1 6 ( B ) N M RA
. B u t , o t h e r t h a n a s s e rt i n g t h a t“a 4 wr it of ne exeat is an infringem ent on a party ’ s liberty

interest[, ] ” D efendant provides 5 no reas on whythi s part ic ular due pr oc es s c ha lle nge sho uld be e xe m pt f ro m the 6 ge ne ra l pr es er

va tio n ru le
. Si m ilarl y , al tho ugh he as se rt s tha t “ thi s ca se im pli ca te s th e 7 publ ic interest because e nforcem ent of the [U PA ] is entrusted to th e A ttorney Ge neral 8 on behalf of the people of NewMexico,” he gives no r easo n why this fact 9 dis tin gui she s th is m at te r fr om a ny oth er pur sue d by a sta te ag en cy . T hus, w e ne ed not 10 ad dr es s t hi s ar gu m en t an y fur th er. Cf

. D oe v . Sta te , 1975-NMC A- 108, ¶ 1 8, 88 N. M. 11 347, 540 P
. 2d 827 (de cl ini ng to addr es s the re spon de nts ’ ar gum en ts bec au se the y did 12 not prov ide “ som e sh owing on appeal of the suggested fund am ental or j urisdictio nal 13 na tu r e o f t he erro r”). Ho wev er, t o fo recl os e an y fur th er ar gu m en t o n t he is su e, we 14 w ill a ddr es s it

on i ts m er its
. 15 { 32} D ef

en da nt’ s asse rt ion tha t he w as pr ovi de d no opp ortun ity to be he ar d onthe 16 m oti on f

or inc re as e is f

la tly c ontra dic te d by

the re co rd , as is his co nte nti on tha t the 17 Attorney

Ge neral presented “ noth ing bu t innu endo” at the hearing and that the district 18 co urt c onsi de re d “ no e vid en ce w ha tso ev er . ” D ef en da nt fi le d a re spon se in oppo sit ion 19 to the m otion in which he disputed that he wa s dissi pating assets from Ne w Me xico21

1 and contested th e A ttorney Ge neral’ s interpretation of the real e state contract 2 docum enting sale of the Solano property . Mor eover, De fendant had noti ce of and was 3 pr es en t and r ep re se nte d by co un sel a t the he ar ing on the m oti on. T he re is no 4 ind ic at ionin the r ec or d th at D ef en da nt w as de nie d th e oppo rt uni ty to pr es en t 5 w itn es se s a t the he ar ing
. F ina lly , the A tto rn ey G en er al sub m itt ed am em or an dum

of 6 the r ea l es ta te co ntr ac t as an ex hib it, an d D ef en da nt h im se lf

sub m itt ed

a n e xhi bit

f or 7 the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s re vie w . D ef en da nt’ s ri ght to d

ue pr oc es s of

laww as not

vio la te d. 8 CON CLU SION 9 { 33} Fo r the f

or eg oin g r ea sons , w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r inc re as ing the 10 am ou nt of t he writ of n e ex eat bo nd
. 11 { 34} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

12 13 M IC HA EL D . BU ST A M A N TE , Ju dg e 14 WE CO NCUR:
15

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 16 R OD ERIC K T . KE N N ED Y , Ju dg e
17

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 18 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, Ju dg e