Brewer v. Niemyjski

Opinion

1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 5 not include the filing date.

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 WILLIE H. BREWER and 8 ANNA NITA BREWER,

9 Plaintiffs-Appellees, 10 v. NO. 29,688 11 TADEUSZ NIEMYJSKI, 12 Defendant-Appellant.

13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY 14 John W. Pope, District Judge

15 Steider & Associates, P.C. 16 Timothy D. Steider 17 Albuquerque, NM

18 for Appellees

19 Tadeusz Niemyjski 20 Meadow Lake, NM

21 for Appellant 22 MEMORANDUM OPINION 23 WECHSLER, Judge.

1 Defendant Tadeusz Niemyjski appeals the district court’s judgment ordering 2 him to vacate real property and to pay damages, costs, and attorney fees. On 3 September 1, 2009, this Court filed a notice of proposed summary disposition 4 proposing to affirm the district court. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition 5 to summary disposition, which we have given due consideration. We affirm the 6 district court. 7 Defendant argues that it was error for the district court to allow Plaintiffs Willie 8 H. and Anna Nita Brewer to sue him as individuals rather than as trustees of the 9 Brewer Family Trust. Rule 1-017(A) NMRA provides: “Every action shall be 10 prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest; but [a] trustee of an express trust 11 . . . may sue in that person’s own name without joining the party for whose benefit the 12 action is brought.” 13 “Interpretation of both a court rule and a statute are questions of law that we 14 review de novo on appeal.” State v. Romero, 2006-NMCA-126, ¶ 5, 140 N.M. 524, 15 143 P.3d 763, aff’d, 2007-NMSC-030, 141 N.M. 733, 160 P.3d 914. “In interpreting 16 a Supreme Court rule of procedure, we look first to the rule’s plain language.” Gates 17 v. State, Taxation & Revenue Dept., 2008-NMCA-023, ¶ 10, 143 N.M. 446, 176 P.3d 18 1178. “If the rule is unambiguous, we give effect to its language and refrain from

3

1 further interpretation.” In re Michael L., 2002-NMCA- 076, ¶ 9, 132 N.M. 479, 50 2 P.3d 574. “[The rules of civil procedure] shall be construed and administered to 3 secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.” Rule 1- 4 001(A) NMRA. 5 We conclude that the language of Rule 1-017(A) is unambiguous, and thus the 6 Brewers, who are trustees of an express trust, could sue in their own names without 7 specifying their capacity as trustees. Accordingly, we affirm the district court. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 _______________________________ 10 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 11 WE CONCUR:

12 _______________________________ 13 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge

14 _______________________________ 15 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge