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 Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official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 SANDRA GALLEGOS and 7 DAMACIO GALLEGOS, 8 Plaintiffs-Appellees, 9

v. NO. 29,645 10 JUDY GONZALES, MANNIE J. TRUJILLO 11 and TOMMY F. TRUJILLO, 12 Defendants-Appellants. 13
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY 14 Karen L. Parsons, District Judge 15 David M. Stevens, Attorneys at Law, P.C. 16 William N. Griffin 17 Ruidoso, NM 18 for Appellees 19 The Rose Law Firm 20 Timothy L. Rose 21 Ruidoso, NM 22 for Appellants 23 MEMORANDUM OPINION 242 WECHSLER, Judge. 1 Defendants appeal from the district court judgment that Plaintiffs have a 2 prescriptive easement. Our notice proposed to affirm, and Defendants filed a timely 3 memorandum in opposition. We remain unpersuaded by Defendants’ arguments, and 4 therefore affirm. 5 Issue (1) : Defendants continue to argue that the district court failed to properly 6 instruct the jury as to the elem ents of prescriptive easement. [DS 4; MIO 1] In 7 response to our notice, Defendants do not provide this Court with any additional facts 8 or argument and, instead, electto rely on the arguments set forth in their docketing 9 statement. [MIO 1] Therefore, for the reasons provide d in our notice, we affirm. See 10 State v. Mondragon , 107 N.M. 421, 423, 759 P.2d 1003, 1005 (Ct. App. 1988) 11 (providing that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward 12 and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments 13 does not fulfill this requirement). 14 Issue (2) : Defendants continue to argue thatthe district court abused its 15 discretion in defining the scope of the easement. [DS 5; MIO 1] Defendants argue 16 that the district court effectively divested Defendants of all use of their right to the 17 land [MIO 1] and that they should be “able to use their land to any extent as they see 183 fit as long as they do not disrupt [Plaintiffs’] established easement.” [MIO 1] 1 The district court ruled that “the exis ting fence shall remainin place” (emphasis 2 omitted) [RP 387; DS 5; MIO 1] and that Defendant’s use of the easement shall be 3 “limited to emergency and occasional ingress for maintenance of their buildings, trees 4 and fences, as is reasonable” and for “ access to allow public service employees to 5 maintain utilities.” [RP 387; DS 5; MIO 1] The district court’s ruling allows 6 Defendants access to the easement for some purposes (emergency use, maintenance, 7 access to utilities) [RP 387] , but does not allow Defendants to use the easement 8 without restrictions or, as advocatedby Defendants, “as they see fit.” [DS 5; MIO 1] 9

As recognized in Cunningham v. Otero County Electric Cooperative , 114 10 N.M. 739, 743, 845 P.2d 833, 837 (Ct. App. 1992), “[t]he extent of an easement 11 created by prescription is fixed by the use through which it was created.” (internal 12 quotation marks and citation omitted). Indeed, the district court’s ruling that 13 “Defendants shall make no use of the easement area that interferes in any way with 14 the use of the easemen t by . . . Plaintiffs” [RP 387] is an entirely reasonable restriction 15 on Defendants’ use of the easement. See generally Cox v. Hanlen , 1998-NMCA-015, 16 ¶ 20, 124 N.M. 529, 953 P.2d 294 (filed 1997) ( holding that “[t]he possessor of land 174 subject to an easement created by prescription is privileged, as against the owner of 1 the easement, to make such us es of the servient tenement as are not incompatible with 2 the use authorized by the easement” (int ernal quotation marks and citation omitted)); 3 Archibeck v. Mongiello , 58 N.M. 749, 754, 276 P.2d 736, 741 (1954) (recognizing 4 that “[i]f the adverse user has establishe d the right to a prescriptive easement which 5 is free from obstruction, such easement can not be burdened, changed, or lessened in 6 any way by the owner of the servient estateexcept with the consent of the holder of 7 the easement [because] [i]t is a vested pr operty right” (emphasis, internal quotation 8 marks, and citation omitted)). 9 Moreover, although Defendant s complain that the scope of the easement 10 granted by the district court improperly infringes on their rights [DS 5; MIO 1] , 11 Defendants have not specifically pointed to any activities they are precluded from 12 conducting on the land in questi on that would not interfere with Plaintiffs’ easement. 13 Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth above and in our notice, we affirm 14 the scope of the prescriptive eas ement granted to Plaintiffs. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

_______________________________ 17 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 185 WE CONCUR: 1

_______________________________ 2 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 3

_______________________________ 4 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 5