This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 SETON FAMILY TRUST INTERESTS 7 by TRUSTEE RICHARD A. VAN AUKEN, 8 and RICHARD A. VAN AUKEN, 9 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 10 v. No. 30,215 11 PETER F. WIRTH, ESQ.; 12 FLETCHER R. CATRON, ESQ.; 13 CATRON, CATRON & POTTOW, 14 P.A.; SAWTELL, WIRTH & 15 BIEDSCHEID, P.C.; MICHAEL T. 16 POTTOW, ESQ.; BRYAN P. 17 BIEDSCHEID, ESQ.; W. ANTHONY 18 SAWTELL, ESQ.; THOMAS B. 19 CATRON, ESQ.; JOHN S. CATRON, 20 ESQ.; KAREN AUBREY, ESQ.; 21 BRIGGS CHENEY, ESQ.; 22 PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL 23 SERVICES FOUNDATION; MARIE 24 HARRISON; and DOES 1 THROUGH 25 20 INCLUSIVE, 26 Defendants-Appellees. 27 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 28 James A. Hall, District Judge 29 Richard A. Van Auken 30 Santa Fe, NM 312 for Appellants 1
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb 2 Mark C. Meiering 3 Albuquerque, NM 4 Law Office of Jack Brant PC 5 John M. Brant 6 Albuquerque, NM 7 Gerald G. Dixon 8 Albuquerque, NM 9 for Appellees 10 MEMORANDUM OPINION 11 SUTIN, Judge. 12 Plaintiffs, consisting of Seton Family Trust Interests, by Richard A.Van Auken 13 as trustee filing pro se and by Richard A. Van Auken as beneficiary filing pro se, 14 appeal the district court’s order denying Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate an order 15 dismissing the complaint with prejudice. In our notice of proposed summary 16 disposition, we proposed to dismiss the appeal, and Plaintiffs responded with a 17 memorandum in opposition. We have carefu lly considered Plaintiffs’ arguments, but 18 we are not persuaded that dismissal is not the correct disposition in this case. We 19 therefore dismiss the appeal. 203 In the memorandum in opposition, Plainti ffs continue to make arguments that 1 we have addressed in this cas e and in other appeals before this Court. As discussed 2 in our calendar notice, Plaintiffs filed a complaint on behalf of the “Seton Family 3 Trust,” naming Van Auken as trustee and in cluding Van Auken as a beneficiary of the 4 trust. The trust was reporte dly established to pass property to the heirs of a Seton 5 descendant. [RP 3] Plaintiffs argue that, wh en a sole trustee is the sole beneficiary 6 of a trust, the trust becomes a bequest. [M IO 14-15] However, it is clear that Van 7 Auken is not the sole beneficiary of the trus t in this case. In fact, as noted in the 8 memorandum in opposition, there are several beneficiaries of the trust. [MIO 16-17] 9 Therefore, we reject Plaintiffs’ arguments that are based on the idea that Van Auken 10 is the sole beneficiary of the trust. 11 Van Auken contends that hi s interests as trustee are not separate from those of 12 the other beneficiaries because , pursuant to an agreement, his interests as trustee are 13 aligned with the interests of the other bene ficiaries. [MIO 17-19] In addition, Van 14 Auken claims that he is “pleading the ca se using each of his two different positions 15 or capacities,” as a trustee and a benefici ary. [MIO 19] Regardless of how Van 16 Auken chooses to desc ribe his dual role, the fact remains that Van Auken is not the 17 sole beneficiary of the trust. As trustee, when Van Auken acts on behalf of the trust, 18 he acts for all of the beneficiaries of the trust. See Lee v. Catron , 2009-NMCA-018, 194 ¶ 4, 145 N.M. 573, 203 P.3d 104 (filed 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 90 (2009). As 1 explained in Lee , Van Auken cannot represent the legal interests of the other 2 beneficiaries to the trust in court. Id. ¶ 5. As this Court held in Lee , a trustee may 3 represent a trust pro se only if the trustee is the sole beneficiary. Id. 4 Plaintiffs continue to argue that it is unconstitutional to prevent Van Auken 5 from pursuing his personal claims as benefici ary to the trust. [MIO 21-22, 25, 29, 31] 6 As discussed in our calendar notice, there is nothing to suggestthat Van Auken’s 7 claims under the trust were separated from th e claims of the other beneficiaries, and 8 Van Auken has not identified any separate claims that canbe addressed without the 9 risk of harm to the other beneficiaries. Instead, the record shows that Van Auken’s 10 claims concern the entire trust and that hi s argument has always been that he should 11 be entitled to represent himself andthe other beneficiaries with respect to the claims 12 for the trust. This he cannot do. See id. 13 Plaintiffs argue that New Mexico statutes allow Van Auken, as trustee, to 14 represent and bind the beneficiaries. [MIO 34] It appears that Plaintiffs are arguing 15 that, if a trustee can represent and bind th e beneficiaries, it follows that Van Auken, 16 as trustee, can represent and bind the other beneficiaries through legal representation 17 as well. Plaintiffs cite no authority to support this claim. See In re Adoption of Doe , 18 100 N.M. 764, 765, 676 P.2d 1329, 1330 (1984) (holding that arguments unsupported 195 by citations to authority will not be reviewed). Moreover, as our cases have held, a 1 pro se litigant, unlicensed to practice law, cannot represent the legal interests of others 2 in court. See Lee , 2009-NMCA-018, ¶ 5. 3 Plaintiffs included other issues in the docketing statement, which we addressed 4 in our calendar notice. Plaintiffs restate those issues in the memorandum in 5 opposition, but do not advance new argument or facts in support of the issues. [MIO 6 41, 42, 44] As discussed in our calendar no tice, Plaintiffs’ claims regarding improper 7 influence or collusion by attorneys involve matters that are not of record. See State 8 v. Reynolds , 111 N.M. 263, 267, 804 P.2d 1082, 1086 (Ct. App. 1990) (“Matters 9 outside the record present no issue for revi ew.”). In addition, mere assertions of 10 prejudice or adverse rulings by the district c ourt are not sufficient to show bias on the 11 part of the district court. See State v. Hernandez , 115 N.M. 6, 20, 846 P.2d 312, 326 12 (1993) (stating that adverse rulings or enforcement of the rules does not establish 13 judicial bias). Finally, because we dismiss the appeal, we need not address Plaintiffs’ 14 issues regarding discovery or the protective order that was issued below. 15 For the reasons discussed in this opinion and in our notice of proposed 16 disposition, we hold that it was proper for th e district court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ 17 complaint, and we therefore dismiss this appeal. 186 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

__________________________________ 2 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4

_________________________________ 5 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 6

_________________________________ 7 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 8