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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 fr om 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 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF 2 ROBERT JOHANN ULLRICH AND 3 EVELYN ULLRICH, Deceased. 4 STEPHEN FLOYD ULLRICH, 5 Petitioner-Appellant, 6 v. NO. 35,108 7 ADDA MOLDT, TRUSTEE, 8 Respondent-Appellee. 9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 10 Sarah M. Singleton, District Judge 11 Stephen Floyd Ullrich 12 Boise, ID 13 Pro Se Appellant 14 Lynn M. Finnegan 15 Los Alamos, NM 16 for Appellee 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 VANZI, Judge. 192 {1} Petitioner appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his petition concerning 1 his parents’ estates. We issued a notice of proposed disposition proposing to affirm, 2 and Petitioner has re sponded with a memorandum in opposition. We have carefully 3 considered the arguments raised in thatmemorandum, but continue to believe that 4 affirmance is warranted in this case. Therefore, for the reasons set out below and in 5 our notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm. 6
{2} In our notice we pointed out that eviden ce was presented to the district court 7 indicating that the estates of Petitioner’s parents had no assets to distribute, and that 8 even if they did, Petitioner was not entitled toany assets as he had been disinherited 9 in the parents’ wills. We also pointed to evidence presented by Respondent, the trustee 10 for parents’ trusts, showing that Res pondent had no knowledge of any property 11 belonging to Petitioner that wa s being held by the parents on behalf of Petitioner. In 12 response, Petitioner makes se veral arguments, none of which is supported by legal 13 authority. For that reason alone, we would be entitled to refuse to consider those 14 arguments . ITT Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t , 1998-NMCA-078, ¶ 15 10, 125 N.M. 244, 959 P.2d 969 (holding that th is court does not consider arguments 16 not supported by citation to authority). In addition, the arguments lack merit, as we 17 briefly discuss below. 18
{3} Petitioner contends that Respondent dis posed of personal property belonging 19 to his parents’ estates and that her statement that she did not know of any property 203 being held for Petitioner is a “mere assertion.” [MIO 2] As to the first contention, 1 Petitioner submitted no evidence supporting his claim, and without such evidence we 2 cannot credit the claim on appeal. See, e.g. , State v. Pacheco , 2007-NMSC-009, ¶ 27, 3 141 N.M. 340, 155 P.3d 745 (declining to order a new trial on the basis of the 4 defendant’s mere assertion, without supporting evidence, that the interpreter acted 5 improperly). As to the second, Respondent’s statement about Petitioner’s property was 6 not a “mere assertion”—as we discussed in our notice, the statement was made in a 7 verified (meaning sworn) response f iled by Respondent, and is therefore the 8 equivalent of a sworn affidavit. See Rekart v. Safeway Stores, Inc. , 1970-NMCA-020, 9 ¶ 18, 81 N.M. 491, 468 P.2d 892 (stating that a verified complaint is in effect an 10 affidavit). In turn, an affidavit may properly be the basis for a grant of summary 11 judgment. Rule 1-056(C) NMRA. We ther efore reject Petitioner’s contentions. 12
{4} Petitioner next raises certain questions , without providing any answers or even 13 discussion. For example, he asks whether an executor should have been appointed for 14 his parents’ estates and whether there is a statute that allows him to be disinherited 15 even though he was adopted. [MIO 3] It is not this Court’s duty to search for authority 16 to answer Petitioner’s questions, and we decline to do so. See Elane Photography, 17 LLC v. Willock , 2013-NMSC-040, ¶ 70, 309 P.3d 53 ( pointing out that the appellate 18 courts will not perform parties’ work for them by addressing unclear arguments or 19 arguments that are not supported by cited authority). 204 {5} Finally, Petitioner complains that the district court, and now this Court, have 1 accepted Respondent’s assertions as fact whilerejecting his assertions. He adds that 2 he believes it is extremely unlikely that his parents did not retain some items of 3 property, such as heirlooms. The reason Pe titioner’s assertions have been rejected, 4 while Respondent’s have not, is simple—Petitioner’s assertions are unsworn 5 statements made in pleadings, while Responde nt’s were made in a submission that, 6 as we discussed above, is equivalent to an affidavit. Unsworn statements and 7 assertions made in a brief or other pleading are not sufficient to create an issue of fact 8 requiring further proceedings. V.P. Clarence Co. v. Colgate , 1993-NMSC-022, ¶ 2, 9 115 N.M. 471, 853 P.2d 722; Martin v. Bd. of Educ. , 1968-NMSC-178, ¶ 8, 79 N.M. 10 636, 447 P.2d 516. On the other hand, as we discussed above, factual assertions made 11 in an affidavit or in the equivalent of an affidavit are properly considered by the 12 district court. For this reason, the districtcourt did not err in finding against Petitioner 13 and dismissing his petition. 14
{6} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s decision. 15
{7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

__________________________________ 17 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 18

WE CONCUR: 195 _________________________________ 1 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 2

_________________________________ 3 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 4