Opinion
NO. 32,583
03-13-2013
DUSTY STONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBIN H. SMITH and ALETA SMITH, Defendants-Appellees.
Dusty Stone San Jon, NM Pro Se Appellant Donald C. Schutte Tucumcari, NM for Appellees
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF QUAY COUNTY
Albert J. Mitchell, District Judge
Dusty Stone
San Jon, NM
Pro Se Appellant Donald C. Schutte
Tucumcari, NM
for Appellees
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI , Judge.
Plaintiff seeks to appeal from an order awarding summary judgment to Defendants. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to dismiss on the ground that the district court's order is not final. Plaintiff has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Because we remain unpersuaded that this matter is properly before us, we dismiss the appeal.
As we observed in the notice of proposed summary disposition, the right to appeal is generally restricted to final judgments and decisions. See NMSA 1978, § 39-3-2 (1966); Kelly Inn No. 102 v. Kapnison, 113 N.M. 231, 235-36, 824 P.2d 1033, 1037-38 (1992). Insofar as Defendants' counterclaims remain unresolved, the order from which appeal has been taken is not final. See Watson v. Blakely, 106 N.M. 687, 691, 748 P.2d 984, 988 (Ct. App. 1987) ("An order disposing of the issues contained in the complaint but not the counterclaim is not a final judgment."), overruled on other grounds by Kelly Inn, 113 N.M. at 239, 824 P.2d at 1041; and see, e.g., Healthsource, Inc. v. X-Ray Assocs. of N.M., 2005-NMCA-097, ¶¶ 11-15, 138 N.M. 70, 116 P.3d 861 (observing that appeal may only be taken if all issues have been resolved by the order under consideration; where counterclaims remain, immediate appeal is generally unavailable).
In his memorandum in opposition, we understand Plaintiff to argue that the district court's order should be regarded as final because it contains an award of summary judgment. [MIO 1-3] However, not all awards of summary judgment are final. In a case such as this, where an award of summary judgment resolves all claims associated with the complaint but leaves one or more counterclaims unresolved, the judgment cannot be regarded as final. See, e.g., City of Albuquerque v. Jackson, 101 N.M. 457, 458-59, 684 P.2d 543, 544-45 (Ct. App. 1984) (holding that although an award of summary judgment disposed of all issues in connection with the original complaint, insofar as it left a counterclaim unresolved, it was not a final judgment).
We perceive no basis for departing from the numerous previously-cited authorities, which clearly reflect that the underlying decision is not directly appealable as a matter of right. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we conclude that the district court's order is not immediately reviewable. The appeal is therefore summarily dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________
LINDA M. VANZI , Judge
WE CONCUR:
______________
M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
______________
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge