Court Opinion

ID: 9950230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 16:09:54.370622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:13.107670
License: Public Domain

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the
citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-
generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of
Appeals.

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-41296

CATHY GUNTER (TRUSTEE), et al.,

      Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellant/
      Cross-Appellee,

v.

KIM AUDETTE,

      Defendant/Counterplaintiff-Appellee/
      Cross-Appellant,

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF
ROBERT V. AUDETTE, Deceased.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Daniel E. Ramczyk, District Court Judge

Cathy Gunter
Tijeras, NM

Pro Se Appellant/Cross-Appellee

Kim Audette
Truth or Consequences, NM

Pro Se Appellee/Cross-Appellant

                              MEMORANDUM OPINION

HANISEE, Judge.

{1}   Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Cathy Gunter (Appellant), and Appellee/Cross-
Appellant, Kim Audette (Cross-Appellant), appealed from the district court’s order
dismissing the case with prejudice. We issued a notice of proposed summary
disposition proposing to affirm in both the appeal and the cross-appeal. Appellant has
timely filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. We remain
unpersuaded that our initial proposed disposition was incorrect. Cross-Appellant has not
filed a memorandum in opposition, and the time for doing so has expired. Accordingly,
the issues raised in the cross-appeal are deemed abandoned. See Taylor v. Van
Winkle’s IGA Farmer’s Mkt., 1996-NMCA-111, ¶ 5, 122 N.M. 486, 927 P.2d 41
(recognizing that issues raised in a docketing statement, but not contested in a
memorandum in opposition are abandoned).

{2}   Additionally, Cross-Appellant filed a motion with this Court on January 19, 2024,
asking that we impose sanctions against Appellant. This motion is DENIED. We invite
Cross-Appellant to review Rule 12-208(I) NMRA (stating that no response to the
docketing statement is allowed).

{3}     Appellant’s memorandum in opposition raises issues related to the litigation that
occurred before this case was dismissed with prejudice on November 10, 2022. Neither
party appealed from the district court’s order dismissing the case with prejudice, and the
district court reopened this matter on February 24, 2023, for the limited purpose of
considering Appellant’s motion seeking enforcement of the parties’ settlement
agreement. [RP 2335] See Hall v. Hall, 1992-NMCA-097, ¶ 38, 114 N.M. 378, 838 P.2d
995 (stating that as a general rule, a court has jurisdiction after the judgment to enforce
that judgment). As explained in our notice of proposed summary disposition, however,
issues related to the litigation occurring before the parties entered into the settlement
agreement and before the district court entered its order dismissing the case were not
before the district court on the limited reopening of the case, and we do not consider
them on appeal now. See generally Alba v. Hayden, 2010-NMCA-037, ¶ 7, 148 N.M.
465, 237 P.3d 767 (“The doctrine of law of the case . . . relates to litigation of the same
issue recurring within the same suit. Under the law of the case doctrine, a decision on
an issue of law made at one stage of a case becomes a binding precedent in
successive stages of the same litigation.” (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted)); Turner v. First N.M. Bank, 2015-NMCA-068, ¶ 6, 352 P.3d 661 (“Claim
preclusion bars relitigation of the same claim between the same parties or their privies
when the first litigation resulted in a final judgment on the merits.” (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted)).

{4}   For these reasons, and those set out in our notice of proposed summary
disposition, we affirm the district court.

{5}    IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

WE CONCUR:

JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge

ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge