This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 JOHN CAMPBELL and 2 VIRGINIA CAMPBELL, 3 Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, 4

v. NO. 31,984 5 KEVIN BRESHEARS and 6 RHEANEL BRESHEARS, 7 Defendants/Cross-Defendants 8 Counter-Claimants/Appellants, 9 PAUL LEGLER, 10 Defendant/Cross-Defendant, 11 and 12 AG NEW MEXICO, FCS, PCA, 13 Defendant/Cross-Claimant 14 Counter-Claimant/Counter-Defendant-Appellee 15 and 16 AG NEW MEXICO, FCS, PCA, 17 Third-Party Plaintiff, 18

v. 192 CURTIS BRESHEARS, MARY 1 ELLEN BRESHEARS, his wife, 2 and GRETCHEN LEGLER, 3 Third-Party Defendants. 4 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ROOSEVELT COUNTY 5 Drew D. Tatum, District Judge 6 Sanders, Bruin, Coll & Worley, P.A. 7 Clarke C. Coll 8 Roswell, NM 9 for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants 10 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 11 Harold D. Stratton, Jr. 12 Nury H. Yoo 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Defendants/Cross-Defendants/Counter-Claimants-Appellants Kevin and Rheanel 15 Breshears 16 Rowley Law Firm, P.C. 17 Richard F. Rowley, II 18 Clovis, NM 19 for Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff and Cro ss-Claimants AG New Mexico, FCS, PCA 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 KENNEDY, Judge. 22 This Court issued a calendar notice proposing to dismiss for lack of a final 23 order. There, we noted that “[g]enerally, an order or judgment is not final unless all 243 issues of law and fact have been determinedand the case disposed of by the trial court 1 to the fullest extent possible.” [CN 3 (citing Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison , 113 2 N.M. 231, 236, 824 P.2d 1033, 1038 ( 1992).] We also noted that, based on our review 3 of the record proper, it appeared the follo wing claims remained unresolved: (1) John 4 and Virginia Campbell’s (Campbell) claims against Kevin and Rheanel Breshears 5 (Breshears); (2) Campbell’s claims agains t Paul Legler; (3) Ag New Mexico’s 6 cross-claim against Paul Legler; (4) Ag New Mexico’s third-party claim against 7 Gretchen Legler; and (5) Ag New Mexico’s third-party claim against Curtis and Mary 8 Breshears. [CN 5-6] 9 Breshears has filed a memorandum in response to this Court’s notice of 10 proposed disposition. Breshears states that(1) “[f]inal judgment has been entered on 11 all matters between . . . Breshears and Ag New Mexico[;]” and (2) “it is . . . Breshears’ 12 understanding that the above matters have been resolved, th at they are no longer being 13 pursued, and that no further action is expectedto be taken on the matters by any of the 14 parties involved.” [MIO 2] As this Court pointed out in its notice of proposed 15 disposition, Rule 1-054(B)(2) NMRA governs when a judgment is final in an action 16 involving multiple parties. [CN 3] Rule1-054(B)(2) provides that, “[w]hen multiple 17 parties are involved, judgment may be entered adjudicating all issues as to one or 18 more, but fewer than all parties.” In th e present case, there are outstanding claims 194 involving Breshears and outstanding claims involving Ag New Mexico, thus, there 1 has not been a judgment entered adjudicating all issues as to either of the parties on 2 appeal. To the extent Breshears argues that“[f]inal judgment has been entered on all 3 matters between . . . Breshears and Ag Ne w Mexico,” Breshears has not provided any 4 authority demonstrating that an order resolv ing all claims between two parties, where 5 those parties are still involved in other claims with other parties, is a final judgment 6 for purposes of appeal. See ITT Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 7 1998-NMCA-078, ¶ 10, 125 N.M. 244, 959 P.2d 969 (stating that this Court will not 8 consider propositions that are unsupported by citation to authority); In re Adoption of 9 Doe , 100 N.M. 764, 765, 676 P.2d 1329, 1330 (1984) (stating that where a party cites 10 no authority to support an argument, we may assume no such authority exists). 11 Accordingly, we conclude that the distri ct court’s order granting Ag New Mexico an 12 in rem judgment against Breshears is not a final order pursuant to Rule 1-054(B)(2). 13 To the extent Breshears asserts that an understanding that these remaining 14 matters have been resolved, Breshears does not direct this Court to any document in 15 the record that indicates th ese claims have been dismissed, settled, or otherwise 16 resolved by a judgment of the district court. See Santa Fe Exploration Co. v. Oil 17 Conservation Comm’n , 114 N.M. 103, 108, 835 P.2d 819, 824 (1992) (providing that 18 where a party fails to cite any portion of the record to support its factual allegations, 195 the Court need not consider its argument on appeal); Hennessy v. Duryea , 1 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly 2 that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed 3 disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”). We conc lude that Breshears’ 4 representation that none of th e parties intends to pursue th e remaining claims is wholly 5 insufficient to render the judgment final in this matter where the record does not 6 reflect that the claims have been dismissed or otherwise resolved by the district court. 7 Accordingly, for the reasons stated aboveand in this Court’s notice of proposed 8 disposition, we dismiss. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

_______________________________ 11 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 12

WE CONCUR: 13

___________________________ 14 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 15

___________________________ 16 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 17