O'Brien v. Kelley

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 7 O BRIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC., 8 Plaintiff-Appellee, 9 v. NO. 30,875 10 CARL KELLEY CONSTRUCTION, LTD. CO., 11 a New Mexico limited liability company, 12 Defendant-Appellant. 13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SIERRA COUNTY 14 Edmund H. Kase III, District Judge 15 16 17 18 Atkinson, Thal & Baker, P.C. Douglas A. Baker Justin D. Rodriguez Albuquerque, NM 19 for Appellee 20 J. Robert Beauvais, P.A. 21 J. Robert Beauvais 22 Ruidoso, NM 23 for Appellant 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION 2 KENNEDY, Judge. 3 This Court issued a calendar notice proposing to dismiss Defendant s appeal for 4 failure to file a timely notice of appeal. [Ct. App. File, CN1] Defendant has filed a 5 memorandum in opposition that we have duly considered. [Ct. App. File, CN1] 6 Unpersuaded, however, we dismiss the appeal. 7 I. DISCUSSION 8 In the first calendar notice, we proposed to dismiss the appeal for failure to file 9 a timely notice of appeal based on the following facts and legal analysis. 10 Defendant appeals from the final judgment entered on September 16, 2010. 11 [RP 6179] The notice of appeal was filed on November 3, 2010, more than thirty days 12 later. [RP 6298] On September 7, 2010, prior to the filing of the final judgment on 13 September 16, 2010, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration). [RP 6173] 14 Because the motion was filed before the final judgment, it was necessarily denied by 15 the subsequent entry of the final judgment. See Stinson v. Berry, 1997-NMCA-076, 16 ¶ 8, 123 N.M. 482, 943 P.2d 129 (stating that [w]here there has been no formal 17 expression concerning a motion, a ruling can be implied by entry of final judgment 18 or by entry of an order inconsistent with the granting of the relief sought ). 2 1 Once the final judgment was entered on September 16, 2010, all matters were 2 resolved. Therefore, we conclude that Defendant s filing of the November 3, 2010 3 notice of appeal more than thirty days after the September 16, 2010 final judgment is 4 untimely, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of this appeal. 5 Defendant s memorandum objects to dismissal, arguing that this Court has 6 created an irrebuttable presumption that the trial court s final judgment implicitly 7 denied Defendant s Rule 1-059(E) NMRA motion to reconsider. [MIO 1] Defendant 8 points out that a Rule 1-059(B) motion is timely filed within ten days after the entry 9 of judgment[,] arguing that this rule sets the outside time for the motion to be filed, 10 not the earliest time the motion can be filed. [MIO 2] Defendant also points out that 11 the decision of the court was actually filed on May 13, 2010, including findings and 12 conclusions that would be incorporated into a final judgment. [MIO 3] Defendant 13 argues that there is no legal or procedural basis to treat motions to reconsider filed 14 after the decision is entered and before the final judgment is filed any differently than 15 a motion for a new trial filed after the judgment. [MIO 5] Finally, Defendant argues 16 that it is constitutionally entitled to one appeal as of right and that this Court s 17 proposed ruling deprives it of this right. We are not persuaded. 18 Defendant acknowledges that the May 13, 2010 district court decision in this 19 case clearly contemplates the filing of a final judgment. [MIO 3] As such, until the 3 1 final, written judgment was filed on September 16, 2010, none of the time periods 2 applicable to a party s filing of a post-judgment motion begin to run. Similarly, the 3 appellate rules allow that certain post-judgment motions toll the time for filing a 4 notice of appeal. See Rule 12-201(D) NMRA. Amendments in 2006 to the Rules of 5 Civil Procedure regarding post-judgment motions have done away with the prior 6 deemed denied provisions relating to post-judgment motions filed pursuant to Rules 7 1-054.1 NMRA, 1-052(D) NMRA, 1-059(D), and NMSA 1978, Section 39-1-1 8 (1953). See, e.g., Albuquerque Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 9 2007-NMSC-051, ¶¶ 10-13, 142 N.M. 527, 168 P.3d 99 (discussing that the rules of 10 civil procedure, regarding post-judgment motions, were amended in 2006 and that 11 [b]ecause there no longer is an automatic denial of post-judgment motions, the time 12 for filing notices of appeal will run from the entry of an order expressly disposing of 13 the motion ); see also Rule 12-201(D) (stating that the time for filing of notice of 14 appeal runs from date of the entry of an order expressly disposing of the motion 15 when there is no provision of automatic denial of a motion under applicable statute or 16 a rule of court). 17 Albuquerque Redi-Mix clarifies that a Rule 1-059(E) motion, by its express 18 language, was never subject to the deemed denied provisions. Id. ¶¶ 11-13. 19 Albuquerque Redi-Mix also provides that a Rule 1-059(E) motion is a post-judgment 4 1 motion and that the timeliness deadlines regarding filing it and filing a notice of 2 appeal run from the filing of the final, appealable judgment. Id. ¶ 7 (stating that a 3 motion for reconsideration filed within ten days of judgment is a motion to alter or 4 amend a judgment under Rule 1-059(E) ). Thus, to the extent Defendant considers 5 that the Rule 1-059(E) motion was deemed denied thirty days after its filing on 6 October 7, 2010 and, therefore, that the notice of appeal was timely filed within thirty 7 days of October 7, 2010, on November 3, 2010, we disagree. The concept of 8 deemed denied and the recent case law regarding it relates to post-judgment motions 9 not, as in this case, a pre-judgment motion that is filed prior to the final judgment and, 10 therefore, necessarily denied by it. See, e.g., Rule 12-201(D); cf. Grygorwicz v. 11 Trujillo, 2009-NMSC-009, ¶ 8, 145 N.M. 650, 203 P.3d 865 (holding that if a party 12 makes a post-judgment motion directed at the final judgment, the final judgment is 13 rendered non-final, and the time for filing an appeal does not begin to run until the 14 district court expressly disposes of the motion). 15 In this case, Defendant filed a pre-judgment motion on September 7, 2010, 16 asking the district court to reconsider its May 13, 2010 decision. The final judgment 17 entered thereafter, on September 16, 2010, is inconsistent with the relief sought in 18 Defendant s motion. As such, the final judgment denied the motion. Stinson, 19 1997-NMCA-076, ¶ 8. Defendant s notice of appeal filed on November 3, 2010, more 5 1 than thirty days after September 16, 2010, is untimely, and this Court lacks 2 jurisdiction over the appeal. See, e.g., State v. Lucero, 2001-NMSC-024, ¶ 9, 130 3 N.M. 676, 30 P.3d 365 (stating that there is no corresponding constitutional right to 4 a motion for new trial. Like a motion to modify a sentence, a motion for new trial is 5 governed exclusively by our procedural rules, and it is therefore distinguishable from 6 a notice of appeal. . . . It is incumbent upon the parties to strictly adhere to our clearly 7 articulated rules of procedure. Procedural rules do nothing if they do not establish 8 uniformity upon which all participants in the legal system can rely ) (alteration 9 omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Trujillo v. Serrano, 117 N.M. 10 273, 278, 871 P.2d 369, 374 (1994)). 11 II. CONCLUSION 12 We dismiss the appeal for failure to file a timely notice of appeal. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 _______________________________ RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 6 1 WE CONCUR: 2 ___________________________ 3 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 4 ___________________________ 5 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 7

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.