Wyo. Terrace LLC v. Lucero

• Docket Number: A-1-CA-41361
• Decision Date: 26 December 2023
• Parties: WYOMING TERRACE LLC d/b/a SUNRISE ESTATE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BENNIE LUCERO, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

1

WYOMING TERRACE LLC d/b/a SUNRISE ESTATE, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BENNIE LUCERO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-1-CA-41361

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 METROPOLITAN COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Jason M. Jaramillo, Metropolitan Court Judge

Vance, Chavez & Associates, LLC James A. Chavez, P.C. James A. Chavez Albuquerque, NM for Appellee

New Mexico Legal Aid, Inc. Parker Pollard Albuquerque, NM for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JANE B. YOHALEM, JUDGE

{¶1} Defendant appeals from the metropolitan court's judgment for possession and writ of restitution terminating his tenancy and restoring the mobile home space to Plaintiff. We issued a calendar notice proposing to reverse. Plaintiff has filed a

2

memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we reverse.

{¶2} In our proposed disposition, we relied on Four Hills Park Group, LLC v. Masabarakiza, ___-NMCA-___, ¶ 5, ___P.3d ___ (A-1-CA-39622, July 25, 2023), and proposed to reverse the metropolitan court's judgment for possession and writ of restitution on the grounds that Plaintiff did not comply with the service requirements under NMSA 1978, Section 47-10-3(B) (1997). In its memorandum in opposition, Plaintiff "acknowledges and agrees that the facts in this case are substantially similar to the recently decided case of Four Hills Park Group, LLC v. Masabarakiza." [MIO 2] Nevertheless, Plaintiff argues that "[t]his appeal affords this Court the opportunity to correct Masabarakiza, as it is wrongly decided pursuant to New Mexico law." [MIO 2] Plaintiff asserts that Masabarakiza misapprehended the Mobile Home Park Act as it relates to the service of notice to quit, see § 47-10-3, and notices to pay or quit, see NMSA 1978, § 47-10-6 (1993), and that based on the plain language of Section 47-10-6 notice can be served or posted. [MIO 2-3] However, we do not view these arguments as compelling reasons to overrule this Court's recent opinion, and therefore decline to do so. See State ex rel. Martinez v. City of Las Vegas, 2004-NMSC-009, ¶ 24, 135 N.M. 375, 89 P.3d 47 ("Based on the importance of stare decisis, we require a compelling reason to overrule one of...