New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2014

MacLellan v. Eyermann

MacLellan v. Eyermann
New Mexico Court of Appeals · Decided February 3, 2014

MacLellan v. Eyermann

Opinion

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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 JOANN M. MACLELLAN, Individually and as Guardian and Trustee of DAVID TIMOTHY KING, DANIEL J. KING, and JOHN R. KING, 6 Claimants-Appellants, v. No. 33,123 VIRGINIA N. EYERMANN, 9 Personal Representative-Appellee, IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PHILLIP TIMOTHY KING, Deceased.

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUNA COUNTY J.C. Robinson, District Judge Scott Hulse P.C.

15 Casey S. Stevenson El Paso, TX for Appellants M. Yvonne Gonzalez Silver City, NM for Appellee 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION VIGIL, Judge.

3 {1} Appellant, JoAnn M. MacLellan, Individually and as Guardian and Trustee of David Timothy King, Daniel J. King, and John R. King, seeks to appeal from the district court’s amended order, dated July 31, 2013, denying her request to vacate the district court’s order, dated July 2, 2013, denying her claims. [DS 2, RP 397, 357] We issued a notice proposing to summarily remand to allow the district court to consider an outstanding motion for relief from judgment filed by MacLellan in the district court on August 1, 2013. MacLellan did not file a response to our proposed disposition, but the Personal Representative of the Estate of Phillip Timothy King, Virginia N. Eyermann, filed a timely memorandum in opposition.

12 {2} We continue to believe that MacLellan’s post-judgment motion should be construed as a motion under NMSA 1978, Section 39-1-1 (1953), and that in the interests of judicial economy, this case should be remanded to the district court so that it can rule on this motion. Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court.

16 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 __________________________________ 18 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge WE CONCUR: ___________________________________ LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

3 ___________________________________ M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.