New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2014

Solar Villa Apartments v. Washburn

Solar Villa Apartments v. Washburn
New Mexico Court of Appeals · Decided June 24, 2014

Solar Villa Apartments v. Washburn

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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 SOLAR VILLA APARTMENTS, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NO. 33,602 ANA WASHBURN, 6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Beatrice J. Brickhouse, District Judge

9 Solar Villa Apartments Chris Baca/Agent Albuquerque, NM Pro Se Appellee Ana Washburn Albuquerque, NM Pro Se Appellant

16 MEMORANDUM OPINION HANISEE, Judge.

2 {1} Ana Washburn, a self-represented litigant (Defendant) appeals from the district court’s memorandum opinion and order affirming the metropolitan court’s judgment for restitution in favor of Solar Villa Apartments (Plaintiff) in which Defendant’s rental agreement was terminated and Defendant was ordered to pay Plaintiff $159.50 in prorated rent and costs. [RP 12] The calendar notice proposed summary reversal on the basis that the metropolitan court legally erred in disregarding Defendant’s retaliation defense to Plaintiff’s action for possession.

9 {2} Plaintiff has failed to file a memorandum in opposition to the proposed disposition and the time for doing so has passed. Defendant has filed a memorandum in support of the proposed disposition.

12 {3} For the reasons set forth in this Court’s calendar notice, we reverse the district court’s memorandum opinion and order and the metropolitan court judgment for restitution. We remand to the metropolitan court for a hearing on and due consideration of Defendant’s owner retaliation defense, including, if the retaliation defense has merit, whether the eviction proceedings should be stayed pending completion of the discriminatory practices investigation.

18 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 _________________________________ 2 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

3 WE CONCUR:

4 _________________________________ RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge

6 _________________________________ LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

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