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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPHINE A.G. STEVENS, deceased, and concerning ELISA MCDOWELL, 6 Petitioner-Appellee, v. NO. 32,356 LOUELLA GALBISO, JOSEPHINE (GALBISO) MARTINEZ, MARY JANE GALBISO, and SYDNEY (ISABEL GALBISO) ASCHERT, 12 Respondents-Appellants.

13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY C. Shannon Bacon, District Judge Lakins Law Firm, P.C.

16 Charles N. Lakins Albuquerque, NM for Appellee Law Office of Frederick C. Roesti Frederick C. Roesti San Francisco, CA Miguel Campos Albuquerque, NM for Appellants 4 MEMORANDUM OPINION SUTIN, Judge.

6 {1} We need not set out background facts given that this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are well acquainted with the facts. In addition, we do not set out or discuss the arguments and authorities of the parties. We have reviewed the briefs and those parts of the record that are pertinent to the parties’ arguments. Despite Appellants’ counsel’s plentiful failures to follow our Rules of Appellate Procedure and despite Appellants’ and their counsel’s unwarranted, vexatious, and excessive document filings and presentations in the district court and this Court, we are ruling on Appellants’ appellate points.

14 {2} We hold that Appellants’ appeals from the four orders entered on May 16, 2012, are untimely. The appeals from those orders are dismissed with prejudice.

16 {3} We hold that Appellants’ appeal from the June 26, 2012, order was one day late. Appellants have not shown that the tardy filing was because of court clerk error.

18 Nevertheless, the issue is sufficiently cloudy for this Court to give Appellants the benefit of the doubt that we have in regard to the timeliness of the appeal, and we address Appellants’ appeal point relating to the June 26, 2012, order.

1 {4} From our review of the record and the briefs, including arguments and authorities, we conclude and hold that the district court did not err or in any manner abuse its discretion in making the determinations contained in the court’s June 26, 2012, order. We are persuaded by the arguments and authorities set out in Appellee’s answer brief.

6 {5} In conclusion, Appellants’ appeals from the orders entered on May 16, 2012, are dismissed as untimely. We affirm the district court’s order entered on June 26, 2012.

9 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 __________________________________ 11 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge WE CONCUR:

13 ___________________________________ RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge

15 ___________________________________ TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge