In re Barela (Unpublished Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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 computergenerated 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-39922 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOE T. BARELA, Deceased, MICHELE NAVARRETTE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. LORRAINE B. POHL, Personal Representative, Respondent-Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Denise Barela Shepherd, District Judge NM Trust and Probate Law Firm, LLC Monica A. Davis Albuquerque, NM for Appellant Dory-Garduño Law Firm, LLC James E. Dory Albuquerque, NM for Appellee MEMORANDUM OPINION HANISEE, Chief Judge. {1} Petitioner appeals the district court’s opinion and order, entered June 28, 2021. [RP 133] We entered a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to affirm. Petitioner filed a memorandum in opposition and Respondent filed a memorandum in support, both of which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded that the district court committed reversible error, we affirm. {2} Our notice of proposed disposition proposed to affirm based on our proposals that the district court did not err by: (1) refusing to reconsider the October 2020 order as to the validity of the will, (2) determining Petitioner’s claims were barred by res judicata, and (3) determining that the prior order was a formal testacy order. [CN 5-7] In her memorandum in opposition, Petitioner continues to maintain, based on the same theories, that her claims were not barred because the district court had not yet ruled on the final distribution of the estate. [MIO 7] The arguments contained in Petitioner’s memorandum in opposition do not sufficiently address the specific concerns this Court identified in our notice of proposed disposition, do not persuade us that this Court’s proposed summary disposition was in error, and do not otherwise impact our analysis or our disposition of this case. {3} Therefore, we affirm for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”); see also See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. {4} IT IS SO ORDERED. J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge WE CONCUR: ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge
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.
