Martinez v. Friede
| Decision Date | 20 February 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 28,025.,28,025. |
| Citation | 86 P.3d 596,2004 NMSC 6,135 N.M. 171 |
| Parties | Diane MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. Susan FRIEDE, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Coppler & Mannick, P.C., Gerald A. Coppler, Santa Fe, NM, for Petitioner.
Montgomery & Andrews, P.A., Walter J. Melendres, Tonia Ouellette Klausner, Santa Fe, NM, for Respondent.
{1} We were petitioned to review the opinion of the Court of Appeals, which held that the district court's order granting a new trial was void since the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on a motion for new trial more than thirty days after it was filed. Martinez v. Friede, 2003-NMCA-081, ¶ 1, 133 N.M. 834, 70 P.3d 1273. We granted certiorari pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 34-5-14(B) (1972) and Rule 12-502 NMRA 2004. We hold that the district court lacked the authority to grant Petitioner's motion for new trial under Rule 1-059 NMRA 2004; however, the district court's reopening of the judgment and granting of a new trial was authorized and proper under Rule 1-060(B)(6) NMRA 2004. Therefore, we reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the May 24, 2001 judgment in this case, which included damages of $10,353.75 for Petitioner's pain and suffering.
{2} This case arose out of an automobile accident in Albuquerque. Susan Friede ("Respondent") was the driver of one car and Diane Martinez ("Petitioner") the driver of the other. Antonette Martinez and Benjamin Martinez were both passengers in the car driven by Petitioner. Petitioner and each of her passengers sustained physical injury and thus filed suit against Respondent. At trial, all three plaintiffs alleged they were entitled to damages resulting from past and future pain and suffering. At the close of evidence, the district court granted a directed verdict against Petitioner and Benjamin Martinez denying them damages for future pain and suffering. The district court ordered the parties to modify the jury instructions to reflect the directed verdict. As modified, Jury Instruction No. 23 read in full:
(Emphasis added.) Jury Instruction No. 23 was then submitted to the jury without objection from either party.
{3} The jury found Respondent wholly liable for the accident and awarded Petitioner medical expenses of $4353.75, Benjamin Martinez medical expenses of $1908.50, and Antonette Martinez medical expenses of $16,143.75. The jury also initially returned a general award of $30,000, but failed to specify how this award was to be divided among the plaintiffs. The district court, with the approval of the attorneys for both sides, requested that the jury clarify its general award of $30,000. The jury deliberated briefly before writing on the special verdict form that Antonette Martinez was to receive $30,000 for her pain and suffering. On August 3, 1999, the district court entered judgment on the jury's verdict.
{4} On August 10, 1999, Petitioner and Benjamin Martinez timely filed a joint motion for new trial arguing that the verdict was not supported by substantial evidence. The district court set a hearing on the matter for September 10, 1999. At that hearing, Petitioner and Benjamin Martinez argued for the first time that the jury was confused by Jury Instruction No. 23. The district court found substantial evidence to support the jury's refusal to give Petitioner and Benjamin Martinez damages for pain and suffering. The district court further found that the jury was not confused by Jury Instruction No. 23 with respect to Benjamin Martinez. However, the district court invited further argument with respect to whether the jury was confused in its award of damages to Petitioner. In her supplemental briefing, Petitioner expressly asserted Rule 1-059(A) as providing the authority for the court to grant a new trial.
{5} On December 13, 1999, the district court issued an order granting a new trial on damages for Petitioner because "Jury Instruction No. 23[was] confusing and ambiguous" and "likely caused the [j]ury to enter its unjust and unsupportable judgment with regard to plaintiff Diane Martinez's damages for pain and suffering." As a result of that order, Respondent filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Superintending Control and Request for Stay of Proceedings, arguing the trial court erred by ordering a new trial and the erroneous order would result in a waste of time, money, and judicial resources. We denied Respondent's petition.
{6} In the meantime, Benjamin Martinez had appealed his damages award primarily on the ground that the trial court erred by denying him a new trial, especially in light of the court's granting of a new trial to Diane Martinez. On March 7, 2000, the Court of Appeals issued a memorandum opinion affirming the district court's refusal to grant Benjamin Martinez a new trial. The court focused solely on whether the trial court abused its discretion by not granting Benjamin Martinez a new trial. The Court of Appeals held that any juror confusion that might have resulted from the pain and suffering portion of Jury Instruction No. 23 "was immediately resolved by that portion of the instruction concerning aggravation of preexisting conditions." Apparently evidence was introduced at trial showing that Benjamin Martinez had a preexisting back injury that was aggravated during the accident.
{7} On March 6-8, 2001, a new trial was held on the issue of Petitioner's pain and suffering. The jury was given the same pain and suffering instruction as in the first trial with the exception that the sentence informing the jury it could only award future pain and suffering to Antonette Martinez was omitted. The jury was not precluded by its instructions at the second trial from awarding Petitioner damages for future pain and suffering. The second jury awarded Petitioner damages for pain and suffering in the amount of $10,353.75. On May 24, 2001, the district court entered judgment on the second verdict. Respondent timely appealed the case to the Court of Appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by granting Petitioner a new trial on damages.
{8} After the appeal was fully briefed on the merits of granting a new trial, the Court of Appeals requested supplemental briefing from the parties on whether the district court acted within its jurisdiction by granting a new trial more than thirty days after the motion for new trial was filed. Martinez, 2003-NMCA-081, ¶ 6,133 N.M. 834,70 P.3d 1273. Rule 1-059(D) states that "[i]f a motion for new trial is not granted within thirty (30) days from the date it is filed, the motion is automatically denied." The Court of Appeals noted that Petitioner's motion for new trial was denied by operation of law since the district court failed to rule on that motion within thirty days of its filing. Martinez, 2003-NMCA-081, ¶ 13,133 N.M. 834,70 P.3d 1273. Thus, the court held that the order granting a new trial "was void for want of jurisdiction, as were any proceedings conducted pursuant to that order." Id.
{9} In so holding, the Court of Appeals addressed the applicability of Archuleta v. New Mexico State Police, 108 N.M. 543, 545-46, 775 P.2d 745, 747-48 (Ct.App.1989), which held that a district court may grant a motion for new trial beyond the thirty-day time limit imposed by Rule 1-059(D), provided the motion would have been authorized under Rule 1-060(B). The court, though, implicitly determined that Petitioner's motion was not authorized under Rule 1-060(B). The court cited Dozier v. Dozier, 118 N.M. 69, 878 P.2d 1018 (Ct.App.1994) for the proposition that "a Rule 1-060(B) motion may not be used to obtain relief on a ground that was known or should have been known to the movant in time to bring a Rule 1-059 motion." Martinez, 2003-NMCA-081, ¶ 11, 133 N.M. 834, 70 P.3d 1273. Based on this proposition, the court concluded:
Here, the trial court granted the new trial on the ground that the jury likely was confused by the extemporized modification to the jury instruction on damages for pain and suffering. There is no dispute as to the fact that [Petitioner's] counsel participated in the preparation of the modified UJI. Because the fact of the modification of the UJI on damages for pain and suffering was known to [Petitioner] and its possible role in the jury's failure to award damages for past pain and suffering was known or should have been known to [Petitioner] when she filed her motion for a new trial, Dozier precludes the characterization of [Petitioner's] motion for a new trial as a Rule [1-060(B)] motion. T...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. Martinez
... ... Therefore, it is clear that in reviewing Judge Knowles' conclusions of law, "we exercise our own independent judgment without assigning special weight to [his] decision." Martinez v. Friede, 2004-NMSC-006, l 10, 135 N.M. 171, 86 P.3d 596 ... {13} It is less clear the standard of review that we should apply to Judge Knowles' findings of fact. While Rule 1-053(E)(2) appears to require us to adopt an extremely deferential standard of review, Petitioners argue that ... ...
-
Christopherson v. St. Vincent Hosp.
...Wright, et al., Partial New Trial , 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2814 (3d ed. 2016) ; Martinez v. Friede , 2004–NMSC–006, ¶ 12, 135 N.M. 171, 86 P.3d 596 (stating that “our Rule 1–059 is substantially the same as its federal counterpart with one ... exception,” which has since been supersed......
-
State v. Roybal
...¶ 9, 137 N.M. 674, 114 P.3d 354 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); cf. Martinez v. Friede, 2004-NMSC-006, ¶ 27, 135 N.M. 171, 86 P.3d 596 ("The substance of the order controls, not its title or form."). In this case, there is no question that the trial judge did not decide any......
-
Muse v. Muse
...an order is void is a question of law, and we review questions of law de novo. See Martinez v. Friede, 2004-NMSC-006, ¶¶ 1, 8, 10, 135 N.M. 171, 86 P.3d 596, superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in State v. Moreland, 2008-NMSC-031, 144 N.M. 192, 185 P.3d 363; Benavidez v. Benavidez......