1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 TANYA ESPINOSA, TINA ESPINOSA, and 3 RONNIE ESPINOSA, JR.,
4 Plaintiffs-Appellees, 5 v. NO. 27,407
6 UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE 7 COMPANY, MUTUAL OF OMAHA 8 STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT COMPANY 9 (MOSSCO-CT), and MUTUAL OF OMAHA 10 COMPANIES, MICHELLE HOPE 11 ROMERO-ESPINOSA, Individually and as 12 Mother and Next Friend of STEPHANIE 13 NICHOLE ROMERO, JAQUELINE 14 MONIQUE ROMERO and ELIZABETH 15 RACHEL ROMERO,
16 Defendants, 17 and
18 SETTLEMENT FUNDING, LLC, d/b/a 19 PEACHTREE FINANCE CO., LLC,
20 Intervenor-Appellant, 21 consolidated with
22 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF 23 RONNIE GILBERT ESPINOSA, SR., DECEASED,
24 Appellee.
1 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 2 William F. Lang, District Judge
3 Gilman Law Offices, LLC 4 James K. Gilman 5 Albuquerque, NM
6 Clara Ann Bowler 7 Albuquerque, NM
8 for Appellees Tanya Espinosa, Tina Espinosa, and Ronnie Espinosa, Jr.
9 Lewis & Roca LLP 10 R. Thomas Dawe 11 Albuquerque, NM
12 for Appellant Settlement Funding, LLC, d/b/a Peachtree Finance Co., LLC
13 Civerolo, Gralow, Hill & Curtis, P.A. 14 M. Clea Gutterson 15 Albuquerque, NM
16 for Defendants United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., et al.
17 Michelle Hope Romero-Espinosa 18 Albuquerque, NM
19 Pro Se Party
20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 KENNEDY, Judge. 22 In this case, we review an order of the district court declaring that Intervenor-
3
1 Appellant Settlement Funding (Settlement) has no interest in an annuity which 2 originally belonged to Decedent Ronnie Espinosa, Sr. (Espinosa) and in which 3 Defendant Michelle Hope Romero-Espinosa and her three children (Romero 4 Defendants) claimed an interest. We affirm the district court’s amended final order 5 and hold that Settlement has no security interest in the annuity, no claim against 6 Espinosa’s estate, and no claim in equity against Plaintiffs. 7 BACKGROUND 8 This appeal punctuates a convoluted procedural history that we do not recount 9 here. For the narrow purposes of this opinion, we review only those facts essential to 10 a determination of the issues before us. For a more comprehensive account of the 11 dealings between these parties, we refer the reader to our decision in Espinosa v. 12 United of Omaha Life Insurance Co. (Espinosa I), 2006-NMCA-075, 139 N.M. 691, 13 137 P.3d 631. 14 Prior to his death, Espinosa was awarded a settlement as the plaintiff in a 15 medical malpractice claim. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Espinosa received 16 two annuities, both containing anti-assignment provisions. On October 14, 1999, 17 Espinosa and Michelle Hope Romero-Espinosa, as husband and wife, entered into a 18 loan agreement with WebBank in which WebBank agreed to loan them $111,317.00 19 plus interest. Espinosa I, 2006-NMCA-075, ¶ 5. As security for the loan, the
4
1 Espinosas offered WebBank the right to payment on annuity number SU6176399. 2 WebBank proceeded with the loan and eventually assigned all rights under the loan 3 and security agreement to Settlement. Id. 4 Espinosa died on September 11, 2000,1 and his three children by his former 5 wife (Plaintiffs) filed a declaratory judgment action against the Romero Defendants 6 to establish themselves as beneficiaries under the two annuities. Id. ¶¶ 3-5. In the 7 meantime, the loan assigned to Settlement had gone into default, and Settlement 8 intervened against Plaintiffs and the Romero Defendants to recover the annuity in 9 satisfaction of the debt. Id. ¶ 5. As intervenor, Settlement also claimed unjust 10 enrichment against Plaintiffs and the Romero Defendants. In Espinosa I, we 11 considered the anti-assignment clauses in the annuities, held that the they were valid, 12 and remanded that case to the district court for enforcement of the anti-assignment 13 provision against Settlement. Id. ¶¶ 1, 30. 14 When the district court reconsidered the case, it issued an order granting 15 summary judgment to Plaintiffs and stating that the use of the annuity as security 16 constituted a violation of the anti-assignment provision and was invalid. The court 17 held that Settlement had “no lien or other security interest, or any other claim of any 18 kind” in the annuity. The court also ordered Settlement to make restitution to
18 1 Espinosa’s date of death is mistyped in Espinosa I, 2006-NMCA-075, ¶ 4, as 19 September 1, 2000.
5
1 Plaintiffs for all sums Settlement had previously collected from the annuity, and it 2 concluded that Settlement’s petition for allowance of claim filed in the probate 3 proceeding was “untimely and not well taken and should be denied.” Settlement now 4 appeals that decision, arguing that the district court lacked substantial evidence for its 5 determination that Plaintiffs are entitled to the annuity proceeds and that it erred in 6 denying Settlement’s claim against Espinosa’s estate. 7 While this case was pending on appeal, the district court entered an order for 8 sanctions against the Romero Defendants under Rule 1-037(B) NMRA for failing to 9 comply with discovery. That order struck all of the Romero Defendants’ defenses and 10 answers in this case, denied Michelle Hope Romero-Espinosa personal representative 11 status for Espinosa’s estate, and entered judgment by default against her and her 12 children in favor of Plaintiffs. “[N]either [Michelle Hope Romero-Espinosa] nor any 13 of her children have any right, title or interest of any kind whatsoever to the subject 14 annuities” and “Plaintiffs shall be determined to be the lawful contract beneficiaries 15 for the subject annuity contract[].” We have supplemented the record in this case to 16 incorporate that order, dated May 7, 2008. 17 DISCUSSION 18 This dispute revolves primarily around the district court’s January 3, 2007, 19 order awarding summary judgment against Settlement and in favor of Plaintiffs. We
6
1 review orders for summary judgment de novo. Katcher v. Johnson Controls World 2 Servs., Inc., 2003-NMCA-105, ¶ 10, 134 N.M. 277, 75 P.3d 877. 3 1. Settlement Has No Security Interest In the Annuity 4 Settlement no longer argues that they have a security interest in the annuity. 5 Since our previous decision upheld the anti-assignment clause and remanded for entry 6 of judgment for Plaintiffs on the issue, Espinosa I, 2006-NMCA-075, ¶ 30, Settlement 7 now asserts that being ordered to pay Plaintiffs is unsupported by evidence supporting 8 a determination that Plaintiffs are beneficiaries. At oral argument, our attention was 9 drawn to an order entered by the district court for sanctions against the Romero 10 Defendants on May 7, 2008 resulting from their failing to provide discovery. We 11 ordered that the record be supplemented with this order, and the parties had the 12 opportunity to argue its effect. 13 Our Supreme Court held in Gonzales v. Surgidev Corp., 120 N.M. 151, 155-57, 14 899 P.2d 594, 598-600 (1995), that a district court retains sufficient jurisdiction over 15 a case that is on appeal where the district court’s action will not affect the judgment 16 on appeal, and where the further action enables the trial court to carry out or enforce 17 the judgment. Id. at 599. This is such a case. In its order, the district court imposed 18 a default judgment on the Romero Defendants and stated that “neither [Michelle Hope 19 Romero-Espinosa] nor any of her children have any right, title, or interest of any kind
7
1 whatsoever to the subject annuities.” Settlement’s claim to a security interest in the 2 annuity was directed against the Romero Defendants. Because the Romero 3 Defendants no longer have any interest in the annuity, Settlement’s claim is rendered 4 moot. Settlement took no appeal from the May 7, 2008 order. We therefore hold that 5 Plaintiffs are entitled to the proceeds of the annuity, in which Settlement has no 6 further interest. 7 2. Settlement Has No Claim Against Espinosa’s Estate 8 As stated above, Espinosa died on September 11, 2000. Two months later, on 9 November 29, 2000, Michelle Hope Romero-Espinosa was appointed personal 10 representative of his estate. Settlement filed a claim against the estate on June 19, 11 2002, and on March 17, 2004, that action in probate was consolidated with the present 12 litigation. After considering Settlement’s claim against Espinosa’s estate, the district 13 court dismissed the claim as untimely. Settlement argues that the district court’s 14 dismissal was improper. We disagree. 15 Claims by creditors against an estate must be presented within one year of the 16 decedent’s death or within two months from the time the estate notifies the creditor, 17 whichever is shortest. NMSA 1978, § 45-3-803(A) (1993). In this case, the estate 18 provided no notice to Settlement or any other creditor. Therefore, we apply the one 19 year standard announced in Section 45-3-803(A)(1). Espinosa died on September 11,
8
1 2000, and Settlement made no claim against his estate until June 19, 2002, a period 2 of over one year. Because Settlement failed to comply with the requirements of 3 Section 45-3-803(A)(1), we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Settlement’s claim 4 against the estate. 5 Settlement contends that it filed its motion to intervene on August 30, 2001, 6 which was within one year of Espinosa’s death, and that this motion constitutes 7 assertion of its claim against Espinosa’s estate. We are not persuaded. The motion 8 sought leave to file a complaint asserting a claim against the annuity payments, not 9 a claim against Espinosa’s estate. A contract claim asserted against a probate estate 10 must be filed in the probate proceeding. Frei v. Brownlee, 56 N.M. 677, 679, 248 11 P.2d 671, 673 (1952). Settlement filed its motion to intervene in the case Plaintiffs 12 filed against Defendants, not in the probate proceeding, and that case was not 13 consolidated with the probate proceeding until March 17, 2004, more than three years 14 after Espinosa’s death. Settlement is asking us to morph its claim against the annuity 15 proceeds in Plaintiff’s case into a claim on the promissory note in the probate 16 proceeding. We decline to do so. 17 Settlement argues that we should reverse based on the authority of NMSA 18 1978, § 45-3-804 (1983), which defines the process for creditor claims against estates, 19 and NMSA 1978, § 45-3-806 (1993), which allows creditor claims to go forward
9
1 where the personal representative makes no objection. We find these arguments 2 unpersuasive. Neither Section 45-3-804 nor Section 45-3-806 releases a creditor from 3 compliance with the requirements announced in Section 45-3-803.
4 3. Settlement Has No Claim in Equity Against Michelle Hope Romero- 5 Espinosa
6 Finally, we briefly consider the issue of Settlement’s claim against Michelle 7 Hope Romero-Espinosa for unjust enrichment. In its amended complaint in 8 intervention, Settlement asserts that Michelle Hope Romero-Espinosa would be 9 “unjustly enriched if . . . permitted to retain the contract rights and personal property 10 granted as [c]ollateral to [Settlement’s] predecessor in interest.” Such unjust 11 enrichment will occur, Settlement contends, because its predecessor in interest 12 “delivered and paid valuable consideration for the contract rights and [c]ollateral 13 granted to” Michelle Hope Romero-Espinosa. We see this as congruent with 14 Settlement’s statement at argument that this claim lies against anyone who is not a 15 proper beneficiary. On appeal, Settlement claims that the district court erred when it 16 dismissed this equitable claim pursuant to our instructions in Espinosa I. We 17 disagree. As a result of the district court’s entry of default against her, Michelle Hope 18 Romero-Espinosa no longer has any interest in the annuities that form the subject of 19 this appeal. Because she has no interest in the annuities, a claim for unjust enrichment 20 against her in this action would be moot. The district court’s opinion and our opinion
10
1 only resolve the claims between Settlement and Plaintiffs. Since the Romero 2 Defendants have been dismissed from the suit, Settlement’s remedies against them, 3 if any remain, are no longer able to be pursued in this case, and on remand. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons stated above, we affirm the order of the district court and hold 6 that Settlement has no security interest in annuity number SU6176399, no claim 7 against Espinosa’s estate, and no longer any equitable claim against Michelle Hope 8 Romero-Espinosa. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10 ___________________________________ 11 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
12 WE CONCUR:
13 ________________________________ 14 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge
15 ________________________________ 16 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge