February 11, 2019- County of Quay v. Stone, No. A-1-CA-37278

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 	COUNTY OF QUAY,
3 	Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 V. 	NO. A-1-CA-37278
5 	LEE STONE,
6 	Defendant-Appellant,
7 	and
8 DUSTY STONE,
9 	Defendant.
10 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF QUAY COUNTY
11 	David P. Reeb Jr., District Judge
12 	Law Office of Jonlyn M . Martinez, LLC
13 	J onlyn M. Martinez
14 	Albuquerque , NM
15 	for Appellee
16 Lee Stone
17 	San Jon , NM
18 	Pro Se Appellant
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 2/11/2019 8:41 AM
Mark Reynolds

1 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
2 	V ANZI, Judge.
3 {I} 	Defendant Lee Stone, a self-represented litigant, appeals following the district
4 court order filed on March 5, 20 18 , denying Defendants' motions under Rule 1-060
5 NMRA and Rule 1-059 NMRA, and entering an injunction against further pro se
6 filings, incorporating the district court's February 2, 2018 decision letter. [8 RP 2024;
7 8 RP 2016-23] This Court issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant
8 filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. We remain
9 unpersuaded that Defendant has established error.
10 	{2} 	We construed Defendant's docketing statement to have raised three issues,
11 	largely related to the process afforded him. Defendant's response does not track the
12 	analysis of our notice and instead focuses on certain details in the testimony, alleging
13 	various inconsistencies in Plaintiffs evidence. Defendant does not provide us with
14 context for these details, the arguments Plaintiff made in response, the grounds for
15 	the district court's rulings on these details, or controlling legal authority that would
16 	warrant the reversal of the denial of motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1-
17 	060(B) or Rule 1-059. Under these circumstances, we have no obligation to search
18 	the record to develop our own independent understanding of the case and find factual
19 and legal support for Defendant's allegations of error. See Elane Photography, LLC
2

1 v. 	Willock, 	2013-NMSC-040, ,-i 70, 309 P.3d 53 ("We will not review unclear
2 arguments, or guess at what a party's arguments might be." (alteration, internal
3 quotation marks, and citation omitted)). "To rule on an inadequately [developed]
4 issue, this Court would have to develop the arguments itself, effectively performing
5 the parties' work for them." Id. "This creates a strain on judicial resources and a
6 substantial risk of error. It is of no benefit either to the parties or to future litigants for
7 [the appellate courts] to promulgate case law based on our own speculation rather
8 than the parties' carefully considered arguments." Id. "Our courts have repeatedly
9 held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the
10 proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law." Hennessy v. Duryea,
11 	1998-NMCA-036, i124, 124 N.M. 754,955 P.2d 683.
12 	{3} 	We review the issues raised in Defendant's appeal as we did in our notice and
13 	attempt to address the various alleged discrepancies in the evidence in this context.
14 First, Defendant argues that the district court erred by not holding a hearing on
15 	Defendant's post-judgmentmotion(s). [CN 4; MIO 22-24] We explained in our notice
16 	that holding a hearing on post-judgment motions is discretionary with the district
17 	court. See Ulibarri v. N.M Corr. Acad., 2006-NMSC-009, ,-i 18, 139 N.M. 193, 131
18 	P.3d 43 (finding that the district court was not required to hold a hearing on a motion
19 properly characterized as a motion for a new trial); N.M Feeding Co. v. Keck, 1981-
3

1 NMSC-034, ,r 18, 95 N.M. 615,624 P.2d 1012 (holding that a hearing on a motion
2 	for new trial is not required). In New Mexico, a district court is not always required
3 	to hold an in-person hearing, and some matters are properly heard based solely on the
4 	review of the papers submitted by the parties. See N.M 	Transp. Dep 't v. Yazzie,
5 	1991-NMCA-098, ,r 12,112 N.M. 615,817 P.2d 1257 (holding that the appellant
6 	received a hearing when the district court made its decision based on a petition for
7 	relief and 	an 	administrative 	record, 	without 	in-person 	argument). 	We 	further
8 	explained that a matter is "heard" when the district court makes a ruling on an issue.
9 Id. ( defining a "hearing" as "as every step where the judge is called upon to rule for
10 	or against any party"). [CN 4] And we observed that the district court gave Defendant
11 	leave to develop an extensive body of pleadings in this case, and Defendant indeed
12 	filed many motions and responses. [CN 4]
13 	{4} 	Defendant responds to our notice with out-of-state authority suggesting that his
14 allegations of fraud needed to be ferreted out with an evidentiary proceeding. [MIO
15 	22-23] Defendant's contention does not persuade us. A decision on whether to hold
16 a hearing on allegations of fraud and perjury that are raised in a post-judgment motion
17 	falls squarely within the district court's discretion, as we discussed in our notice.
18 Further, the district court fully addressed this in the judge's letter of decision on the
19 motion(s) to reopen:
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Defendants argue Plaintiff committed fraud in the ordinary sense. I,
however, 	opine 	a disagreement 	over a witness's testimony 	or an
inconsistency among witnesses' testimonies or a disliking of a witness's
testimony does not mean fraud exists in the ordinary sense. At trial, I
was persuaded by Plaintiff's argument that the Defendants improperly
used the county's property. My opinion has not changed. The fact that
Defendants dislike my decision and argue the Plaintiff's witnesses and
attorney lied is unpersuasive.
9 	[8 RP 2017]
10 	{5} 	It appears to us that Defendant's argument is that the district court weighed the
11 	evidence presented at trial incorrectly. This does not give rise to reversible error on
12 	appeal. "We will not reweigh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for that of the
13 	fact finder." Clarkv. Clark, 2014-NMCA-030, 126,320 P.3d 991 (alteration, internal
14 	quotation marks, and citation omitted); see also Skeen v. Boyles, 2009-NMCA-080,
15 	1 37, 	146 N.M. 627, 213 P.3d 531 	(stating that, when the district court hears
16 	conflicting evidence, "we defer to its determinations of ultimate fact, given that we
17 	lack opportunity to observe demeanor, and we cannot weigh the credibility of live
18 	witnesses"). "It is for the trier of fact to weigh the evidence, determine the credibility
19 	of witnesses, reconcile inconsistent statements of the witnesses, and determine where
20 the truth lies." Jaynes v. Wal-Mart Store No. 824, 1988-NMCA-076, 18, 107 N.M.
21 	648, 763 P.2d 82.
22 	{6} 	Second, in this Court's calendar notice, we proposed that there was no error
23 	where the district court did not take judicial notice of two laws. [CN 5] Defendant
5

1 does not seem challenge that proposal. In his response, Defendant continues to use
2 the phrase "judicial notice"; however, it appears Defendant redirects its use to
3 testimony, suggesting that the district court and this Court is required to take judicial
4 notice of certain evidence and ascribe it the weight and meaning Defendant desires.
5 	[MIO 2-22] Generally, testimony about disputed matters is not the appropriate subject
6 	of judicial notice. Adjudicative facts subject to judicial notice are those "not subject
7 to reasonable dispute." State v. Erickson K., 2002-NMCA-058, 124, 132 N.M. 258,
8 46 P.3d 1258 (quoting Rule l 1-201(B) NMRA). "Such facts must be matters of
9 common and general knowledge which are well established and authoritatively
10 settled." 	Erickson 	K., 	2002-NMCA-058, 	1 24 	(omissions, 	alteration, 	internal
11 	quotation marks, and citation omitted). Again, this Court does not reweigh evidence
12 	on appeal. Jaynes, 1988-NMCA-076, 18.
13 	{7} 	Third, in this Court's calendar notice, we proposed to hold that the district
14 court was within its discretion to enjoin further prose filings by Defendant. [CN 5-6]
15 	In response to our notice, Defendant addresses this matter only to assert that the
16 	injunction will lead to future wrongful death suits and to state that we are not bound
17 	by the district court's rulings. [MIO 25] Even if this Court is not bound by district
18 	court rulings, we will defer to a district court ruling that is made within its authority
6

1 and discretion. Defendant has not persuaded us that the district court acted outside of
2 its authority and discretion in this case.
3 	{8} 	For the reasons stated in our notice and in this opinion, we affirm the district
4 court' s order.
5 	{9} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
8 WE CONCUR:
9 	(jJ~42, 	.10 JENN~TREP,Judge
L
7