Opinion
A-1-CA-39616
11-16-2021
FRANCISCO VALENZUELA and RACHEL VALENZUELA, Petitioners-Appellees, v. ALLAN D. SNYDER and SHERRY L. SNYDER, Respondents-Appellants.
Eric D. Dixon for Appellees Allan D. Snyder Sherry L. Snyder Pro Se Appellants
Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in Odyssey
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ROOSEVELT COUNTY David P. Reeb, District Judge
Eric D. Dixon for Appellees
Allan D. Snyder Sherry L. Snyder Pro Se Appellants
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge
{¶1}Respondents appeal from the district court's judgment enforcing a prior decision letter, and thus ordering Respondents to pay Petitioners $4,500 in attorney fees as a sanction. We entered a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm. Respondents filed a memorandum in opposition to that notice, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.
{¶2}Respondents argue that this case and prior related actions are frivolous, and thus the district court lacked any authority to decide them. [MIO 1-3] Respondents, however, have not cited any authority not already considered by this Court, have not cited any portion of the record suggesting our understanding of the relevant facts is incorrect, and have not otherwise convinced us that our initial proposed disposition on the issue before us is erroneous. 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 State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10, 127 N.M. 393, 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the district court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). Therefore, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition [CN 4-5], we conclude that Respondents have not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the attorney fees as a sanction against Respondents. We affirm.
{¶3}IT IS SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR: JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge, SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge