This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 NEW MEXICO BANK OF TRUST, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 30,033 9 GLADYS CORLISS, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF QUAY COUNTY 12 Matthew J. Sandoval, District Judge 13 Doerr & Knudson, P.A. 14 Randy J. Knudson 15 Portales, NM 16 for Appellee 17 Gladys Corliss 18 Tucumcari, NM 19 Pro Se Appellant 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 FRY, Chief Judge. 22 Defendant appeals two district court orders: one finding her in contempt of 23 court and the other denying her motion to dismiss. In our notice, we proposed to 242 affirm. Defendant has timel y responded to our proposal. We have considered her 1 arguments and not being persuaded, we affirm. 2 Shortly after our calendar notice was f iled, Defendant fi led an emergency 3 motion asking this Court to mandate that Plaintiff provide her running water. We 4 deny that motion as this Court does not havejurisdiction to issue such a mandate. See 5 NMSA 1978, § 44-2-3 (1884) (conveying upon the district court “exclusive original 6 jurisdiction in all cases of mandamus”). This Court has no original jurisdiction; we 7 are only a court of review. N.M. Const. art. VI, § 29. 8 In our notice, we proposed to concludethat Defendant could not appeal the 9 order denying her motion to dismiss, as it was not a final appealable order. 10 Defendant’s response does not addr ess the finality of this orde r. Therefore, we decline 11 to address the merits of the appeal of the order denying the motion to dismiss. 12 We proposed to affirm the order holding Defendant in contempt of court for 13 failing to comply with a previous court orde r. Defendant continues to argue that the 14 order she was found to have di sobeyed was not a valid orde r. She does not make any 15 new arguments, but simply reiterates thatJudge Sandoval had no authority to issue 16 orders. She argues that she cannot be held in contempt of an order that she has been 17 unable to appeal. We disagree. The proprie ty of the order that she refuses to obey is 18 not relevant to a finding of contempt. See State v. Cherryhomes , 114 N.M. 495, 498, 193 840 P.2d 1261, 1264 (Ct. App. 1992) (stating that a party who disobeys an order may 1 not collaterally attack the validity of the underlying order in the course of an appeal 2 from a judgment holding the party in criminal contempt of court for violating the 3 order). Much of Defendant ’s memorandum in opposition to our calendar notice is an 4 attack on the underlying order. We do not consider those arguments in this case. 5 As we pointed out in our notice, th ere are three elements to a finding of 6 contempt: (1) knowledge of the court’s order, (2) ability to comply, and (3) willful 7 noncompliance with the order. Dial v. Dial , 103 N.M. 133, 136, 703 P.2d 910, 913 8 (Ct. App. 1985). Evidence of each of those elements was established here. 9 In our notice, we addresse d Defendant’s claim of a dueprocess violation during 10 the contempt proceedings. Defendant’s memorandum does not provide us with any 11 further argument on that issue. 12 Therefore, for the reasons stated herein and in the notice of proposed 13 disposition, we affirm the order holdi ng Defendant in contempt of court. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

16 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 174 WE CONCUR: 1

2 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 3

4 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge 5