Brewer v. Niemyjski

• Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 24, 2009
• Docket: 29,688
• Status: Unpublished

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 Please 2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 4 errors or other deviations from the official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

2 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