Tays v. Tays
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 PATRICK D. TAYS, 3 Plaintiff-Appellant, 4 v. No. 35,973 5 DAVID F. METLER III, Personal Representative 6 of the ESTATE OF S. CRAIG TAYS, Deceased, 7 Defendants-Appellees. 8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY 9 Angie K. Schneider, District Judge 10 Patrick D. Tays 11 Ruidoso, NM 12 Pro se Appellant 13 14 15 16 Sutin, Thayer, & Browne, APC Lynn E. Mostoller Katharine C. Downey Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellee 18 19 GARCIA, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Self-represented Plaintiff Patrick D. Tays appeals from the district court’s order, 2 entered on September 8, 2016. This Court issued a notice of proposed disposition, 3 proposing to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order. Defendants S. Craig Tays and 4 David F. Metler III, personal representative to S. Craig Tays, filed a memorandum in 5 support of our proposed summary disposition. In addition to agreeing with this 6 Court’s proposed disposition on the question of finality, Defendants ask this Court to 7 dismiss the appeal based on principles of collateral estoppel and to limit further 8 litigation by Plaintiff on the matters at issue in this case. Plaintiff has not filed a 9 memorandum in opposition, and the time within which he was permitted to do so has 10 expired. Because we do not have jurisdiction, we decline to rule on the additional 11 issues Defendants raise. 12 {2} Accordingly and for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition, 13 we dismiss for lack of a final order. 14 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 ________________________________ TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 17 WE CONCUR: 18 _______________________________ 19 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 2 1 _______________________________ 2 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
