Court Opinion

ID: 9543589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:46:52.279016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:38.975320
License: Public Domain

HARTZ, Judge (Specially Concurring). I concur in the result and join in Judge Black’s opinion except for the discussions of “Indispensable Party” and “Rule 60(B)(4).” The Probate Code states that it prevails over any inconsistent provision in the Rules of Civil Procedure. NMSA 1978, § 45-1-304 (Repl.Pamp.1989). The determination of whether the Probate Code prevails over a rule must be made on a case-by-case basis; some aspects of a rule may apply while others do not. See Mathieson v. Rubier, 92 N.M. 381, 389, 588 P.2d 1056, 1064 (Ct.App.1978). The Probate Code specifically addresses and rejects the substance of Casey’s arguments for relief under SCRA 1986, 1-019 and 1-060(B). Therefore, we need not consider whether he would be entitled to relief under Rules 1-019 or 1-060(B), because to grant relief under either rule would conflict with the Probate Code.