Chavez v. Benavidez

• Docket Number: A-1-CA-41103
• Decision Date: 26 December 2023
• Parties: TAMMY CHAVEZ and CHRISTOPHER CHAVEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STEPHEN BENAVIDEZ and PHILLIP BENAVIDEZ, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

1

TAMMY CHAVEZ and CHRISTOPHER CHAVEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
STEPHEN BENAVIDEZ and PHILLIP BENAVIDEZ, Defendants-Appellees.

No. A-1-CA-41103

Court of Appeals of New Mexico

December 26, 2023

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 DONA ANA COUNTY Grace B. Duran, District Court Judge

Carrillo Law Firm, P.C. Raul A. Carrillo, Jr. Las Cruces, NM for Appellants

Stephen Benavidez Las Cruces, NM Pro Se Appellee

Kenneth L. Beal, P.C. Kenneth L. Beal Las Cruces, NM for Appellee Phillip Benavidez

2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JANE B. YOHALEM, JUDGE

{¶1} Plaintiffs appeal from the district court's final judgment and decree. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Plaintiffs have filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.

{¶2} Issue I: In their memorandum in opposition, Plaintiffs continue to argue that the district court's failure to grant the property to them "results in manifest injustice" and allows Defendants to recover a significant windfall. [MIO 4-8] We proposed to affirm on the grounds that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they were entitled to specific performance because the jury found that no contractual agreement existed between the parties and because Plaintiffs had not shown which legal theory would entitle them to retain possession of the mobile home and land when no contract existed. [CN 1-5]

{¶3} Despite Plaintiffs' many assertions that "the appropriate and equitable remedy would be to enforce the terms of the promise made by [Defendant] Stephen Benavidez and sell the Plaintiffs the trailer," [MIO 4] they have provided no new facts or authority to demonstrate that this approach is, in fact, the most appropriate or that they are entitled to specific performance. 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

3

disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law."); Curry v. Great Nw Ins. Co., 2014-NMCA-031, ¶ 28, 320 P.3d 482 ("Where a party cites no authority to support an argument, we may assume no such authority exists."). As discussed in our proposed disposition, although the jury found that a promise existed between the parties, it found that no contract existed, and as such, Plaintiffs were not entitled to specific performance. [CN 3-4] Despite Plaintiffs' assertion that they understood the promise to mean that an agreement had been made to purchase the land and mobile home, they still do not clarify under which legal theory they would be allowed to retain possession of the property in the absence of a contract. [MIO 6; CN 4-5] Plaintiffs' conclusory statements regarding the judgment being "manifestly unjust" if it is allowed to stand, does not demonstrate error by the district court. See Deaton v. Gutierrez, 2004-NMCA-043, ¶ 31, 135 N.M....