Whittenburg v. Whittenburg
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO L.P. MCKEE (MACK) WHITTENBURG, as Independent Co-Executor of the Estate of Roy R. Whittenburg; LOIS WHITTENBURG ROWLEY, as Independent Co-Executor of the Estate of Roy R. Whittenburg; ROY ROBERT WHITTENBURG, JR., as Co-Trustee of Eighteen of The Grace and Roy Whittenburg Trusts, Dated December 30, 1977; LOIS WHITTENBURG ROWLEY, as Co-Trustee of Eighteen of The Grace and Roy Whittenburg Trusts, Dated December 30, 1977, 13 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 14 v. No. A-1-CA-36825 15 WANDA JEANNE WHITTENBURG, 16 Defendant-Appellee. 17 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF UNION COUNTY 18 Jeff McElroy, District Judge 19 L. P. McKee (Mack) Whittenburg 20 Amarillo, TX 21 Pro Se Appellant 22 Lois Whittenburg Rowley 23 Amarillo, TX 1 Pro Se Appellant 2 Roy Robert Whittenburg, Jr. 3 Amarillo, TX 4 Pro Se Appellant 5 Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP 6 Tamera Dietrich Westerberg 7 Denver, CO 8 Hinkle Shanor LLP 9 Stephen S. Shanor 10 Roswell, NM 11 for Appellee 12 MEMORANDUM OPINION 13 HANISEE, Judge. 14 {1} Plaintiffs L.P. McKee (Mack) Whittenburg, Lois Whittenburg Rowley, and Roy 15 Robert Whittenburg, Jr., appeal an order of the district court finding them in contempt 16 for their failure to comply with a prior order. This Court’s notice of proposed 17 summary disposition proposed to affirm the order of contempt. [CN 9] Defendant has 18 filed a memorandum in support of that proposed summary disposition. [MIS 1] 19 Plaintiffs, however, have made no responsive filing. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has 20 filed a motion to withdraw as counsel informing us that he has been “instructed to take 21 no further action” in this appeal. [4-20-2018 MOT 2] And, the time in which to file 2 1 a memorandum in opposition to our proposed disposition has now passed. We, 2 therefore, affirm the contempt order entered by the district court. 3 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 ________________________________ J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 6 WE CONCUR: 7 ____________________________ 8 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 9 ____________________________ 10 DANIEL J. GALLEGOS, 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.
