In Enfinger, this Court relied on and quoted from a New Mexico case that held "[i]t is well established that an oral ruling by the trial court is not a final judgment, and that the trial court can change such ruling at any time before the entry of written judgment." Enfinger, 722 P.2d at 1174 (quoting State v. Diaz (N.M. 1983), 673 P.2d 501, 502, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1016, 105 S.Ct. 429, 83 L.Ed.2d 356). Montana is the only state that has cited Diaz.

Until entry of a final judgment, the district court judge was not precluded from changing his mind [MIO 23], as he did, and concluding that O'Brien was entitled to an award of costs as the prevailing party. See State v. Diaz, 100 N.M. 524, 525, 673 P.2d 501, 502 (1983) (recognizing that while a matter is pending before the district court, a district court may change its mind at any time prior to entry of the final ruling); see also Levenson v. Haynes, 1997-NMCA-020, ¶ 10, 123 N.M. 106, 934 P.2d 300 (providing that orders entered before a final judgment are interlocutory and as such the district court may revise or rescind such orders at any time before entry of final judgment). We again take notice of the proceedings from O'Brien I [RP Vol.26/6251], and refer to the district court's September 16, 2010, final judgment, which provides that "[t]he issue of costs based on Rule 1-068 [NMRA] Offers of Settlement shall be determined by separate motion and/or cost bill."