Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State ex rel. Bell v. Hansen Lumber Co.
Citations: 86 N.M. 312; 523 P.2d 810Docket: No. 9789
Court: New Mexico Supreme Court; June 21, 1974; New Mexico; State Supreme Court
Mrs. Harry Bell and others (appellees) initiated an action on March 11, 1971, in the District Court of Santa Fe County, seeking an injunction against Hansen Lumber Company, Inc. (appellant) regarding the use of land for a sawmill and lumber yard. Following a trial in October 1971, Judge Lyle Teutsch, Jr. ruled in favor of the appellant on March 1, 1972. Appellees appealed this decision on March 10, 1972, and subsequently filed a motion on July 28, 1972, to set aside the March decision under Rule 60(b) of the New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming newly discovered evidence that the property had been used as a junk yard and dump, along with allegations of fraud by the appellant. On March 21, 1973, Judge Thomas Donnelly issued an order that set aside the March 1 decision and granted a new trial, prompting the appellant to appeal this order. The appellant contended that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion to set aside the judgment due to the pending appeal. New Mexico law supports that once an appeal is filed, the district court is divested of jurisdiction, except for limited purposes, including addressing motions pending at the time of the appeal and vacating an order granting an appeal. The court affirmed that during the appeal, the district court cannot grant relief under Rule 59 or vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b) without the appellate court's permission. Appellees had not filed a motion for remand to allow the district court to consider their Rule 60(b) motion, resulting in a lack of jurisdiction for the district court to grant a new trial. Consequently, the court ordered the district court to vacate its order granting a new trial and reinstating the prior decision. Judges Oman and Stephenson concurred with the opinion.