October 11, 2010 • Volume 49, No. 41 · 10/11/2010 · Ba r Bu l l e t i n - October 11, 2010 - Volume 49, No. 41 3 Ta b l e o f Co n T e n T s Me e T i n g s oC T o b e r 11 Taxation

Bar Bulletin - October 11, 2010 - Volume 49, No. 41 1

Inside This Issue

www.nmbar.org

October 11, 2010 • Volume 49, No. 41

Table of Contents .......................................................3

Board of Bar Commissioners 2010 Election Notice .............................................5 Commission/Board Vacancies ................................6

2010 Section Elections................................................6

Welcome, New Members of the State Bar ..................7

Women’s Bar Holds Membership Reception ..............8

Pro Bono Week, October 24–30 District Pro Bono Committees to Honor

Local Attorneys ......................................................9

Second Judicial District Pro Bono Committee to Host Largest Law-La-Palooza Ever .....................9

“The Culmination of Hard Work and Sacrifice:” N.M. Supreme Court Accepts New Admittees ....10

Clerk’s Certificates ....................................................17

From the New Mexico Court of Appeals

2010-NMCA-084, No. 28,179: State v. Ulibarri ....................................................23

2010-NMCA-085, Nos. 28,632/29,071/29,307: Wilde v. Westland Development Co., Inc. ...........26

(Top) Aaron Kyle Thompson takes the Attorney Oath. (Above) Judge Roderick Kennedy presents Erin Reed and Thomas Lane for admission to the State Bar of New Mexico.

Special Insert:

CLE-At-a-Glance

“The CulminaTion of hard Work and SaCrifiCe” n.m. Supreme CourT aCCepTS neW admiTeeS

page 10

http://www.nmbar.org

2 Bar Bulletin - October 11, 2010 - Volume 49, No. 41

Center for LegaL eduCationNew Mexico State Bar FouNdatioN

Now on Facebook and Twitter

TWO WAYS TO REGISTERINTERNET: www.nmbarcle.org FAX: (505) 797-6071, 24 hour access

Name ___________________________________________________________________ NM Bar # _________________________________

Street ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

City/State/Zip _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phone ____________________________________________________ Fax ____________________________________________________

E-mail ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Credit Card # ________________________________________________________________ Exp. Date ________________ CVV# ________________

Authorized Signature _______________________________________________________________________________________________

CLARENCE DARROW: CRIMES, CAUSES AND THE COURTROOM

(VIDEO REpLAy)

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 • State Bar Center, Albuquerque2.4 General and 1.0 Ethics CLE Credits

r Standard Fee $119

They called him “Attorney for the Damned”…and he was! As master of the courtroom stage, Clarence Darrow possessed an un-canny understanding of human character. He was arguably the greatest trial lawyer of the twentieth century. He was an adamant opponent of capital punishment and a passionate proponent of civil and human rights. He fought for the underdog and took on criminal cases thought to be hopeless. Yet, while commanding respect as a trial lawyer, Darrow was often embroiled in bitter con-troversy for his unpopular stands on many issues and criticized for his purported unethical professional behavior. This character portrait of Darrow portrays his deeply held beliefs and hard fought courtroom battles. Replete with humor, humanity and intense courtroom drama, the movie engages attendees in four of the great defense lawyer’s most famous cases between 1910 and 1928: Loeb and Leopold, Henry Sweet, the McNamara Brothers bombing of the LA Times Building and the Scopes “Monkey Trial.” Using Darrow’s own thoughts and courtroom summations, timeless social, legal and ethical issues are explored.

Noon Registration12:30 p.m. Clarence Darrow: Crimes, Causes and the

Courtroom

2:25 p.m. Panel Discussion3:55 p.m. Adjourn

http://www.nmbarcle.org


Table of ConTenTs

MeeTings

oCTober

11 Taxation Law Section BOD, noon, via teleconference

12 Appellate Practice Section BOD, 12:30 p.m., Scott Davidson’s Law Office

12 Lawyers Professional Liability Committee, noon, State Bar Center

13 Children’s Law Section BOD, noon, Juvenile Justice Center

14 Intellectual Property Section BOD, noon, Law Office of Diane Albert

14 Public Law Section BOD, noon, Montgomery & Andrews, Santa Fe

14 NREEL Section BOD, 12:30 p.m., State Bar Center

15 Public Legal Education Committee, 9 a.m., State Bar Center

sTaTe bar Workshops

oCTober

21 Lawyer Referral for the Elderly Workshop 9:30–11:45 a.m., Presentation 1–5 p.m., Clinics Mary Ester Gonzales Senior Center, Santa Fe

27 Consumer Debt/Bankruptcy Workshop 6 p.m., State Bar Center, Albuquerque

noveMber

10 Estate Planning Workshop 6 p.m., State Bar Center, Albuquerque

DeCeMber

8 Consumer Debt/Bankruptcy Workshop 6 p.m., State Bar Center, Albuquerque

Notices ................................................................................................................................................................4Board of Bar Commissioners 2010 Election Notice ..............................................................................................................................5 Commission/Board Vacancies ............................................................................................................62010 Section Elections ...................................................................................................................................6Welcome, New Members of the State Bar ...............................................................................................7Women’s Bar Holds Membership Reception ..........................................................................................8Pro Bono Week, October 24–30 District Pro Bono Committees to Honor Local Attorneys ........................................................9 Second Judicial District Pro Bono Committee to Host Largest Law-La-Palooza Ever ....9“The Culmination of Hard Work and Sacrifice:” N.M. Supreme Court Accepts New Admittees .......................................................................... 10Legal Education Calendar ......................................................................................................................... 12Writs of Certiorari ......................................................................................................................................... 14List of Court of Appeals’ Opinions ........................................................................................................... 16Clerk’s Certificates ......................................................................................................................................... 17Recent Rule-Making Activity ..................................................................................................................... 21Opinions


2010-NMCA-084, No. 28,179: State v. Ulibarri ........................................................................... 23

2010-NMCA-085, Nos. 28,632/29,071/29,307: Wilde v. Westland Development Co., Inc. ........................................................................................................................ 26

Advertising ..................................................................................................................................................... 36

Officers, Board of Bar Commissioners Stephen S. Shanor, President Jessica A. Pérez, President-Elect Hans Voss, Vice President Andrew J. Cloutier, Secretary-Treasurer Henry A. Alaniz, Immediate-Past President

Board of Editors Mark A. Glenn, Chair Danny W. Jarrett Kimberly L. Alderman Joan Marsan Joel McElroy Carson Kathryn Joy Morrow Cynthia A. Christ Steven K. Sanders Autumn Gray Kelly A. Thomas

State Bar Staff Executive Director Joe Conte Membership and Communications Director Chris Morganti Editor Dorma Seago (505)797-6030•[email protected] Graphic Designer Julie Schwartz [email protected] Account Executive Marcia C. Ulibarri (505)797-6058•[email protected] Print Shop Manager Brian Sanchez Assistant Michael Rizzo Assistant Michael Schall

©2010, State Bar of New Mexico. No part of this publica-tion may be reprinted or otherwise reproduced without the publisher’s written permission. The Bar Bulletin has the authority to edit letters and materials submitted for publication. Publishing and editorial decisions are based on the quality of writing, the timeliness of the article, and the potential interest to readers. Appearance of an article, editorial, feature, column, advertisement or photograph in the Bar Bulletin does not constitute an endorsement by the Bar Bulletin or the State Bar of New Mexico. The views expressed are those of the authors, who are solely responsible for the accuracy of their citations and quotations. State Bar members receive the Bar Bulletin as part of their annual dues. The Bar Bulletin is available at the subscription rate of $125 per year and is available online at www.nmbar.org.

The Bar Bulletin (ISSN 1062-6611) is published weekly by the State Bar of New Mexico, 5121 Masthead NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109-4367. Periodicals postage paid at Albuquerque, NM. Postmaster: Send address changes to Bar Bulletin, PO Box 92860, Albuquerque, NM 87199-2860.

(505)797-6000•(800)876-6227•Fax:(505)828-3765 E-mail:[email protected].•www.nmbar.org

October 11, 2010, Vol. 49, No. 41

mailto:[email protected]







noTiCesWith respect to opposing parties and their counsel:

I will not serve motions and pleadings that will unfairly limit the other party’s opportunity to respond.

professionalisM Tip

Judicial Records Retention and Disposition Schedules Pursuant to the Judicial Records Retention and Disposition Schedules, exhibits (see specifics for each court below) filed with the courts for the years and courts shown below, including but not limited to cases that have been consolidated, are to be destroyed. Cases on appeal are excluded. Counsel for parties are advised that exhibits (see specifics for each court below) can be retrieved by the dates shown below. Attorneys who have cases with exhibits may verify exhibit information with the Special Services Division at the numbers shown below. Plaintiff(s) exhibits will be released to counsel of record for the plaintiff(s), and defendant(s) exhibits will be released to counsel of record for defendant(s) by Order of the Court. All exhibits will be released in their entirety. Exhibits not claimed by the allotted time will be considered abandoned and will be destroyed by Order of the Court. Court Exhibits For Years May Be Retrieved Through lst Judicial District Court Exhibits in criminal, civil, domestic relations, 1978–1995 Nov. 5 (505) 455-8275 and children’s court

5th Judicial District Court Exhibits in criminal cases 1971–2009 Nov. 12 County of Chaves (575) 622-2565, x120

CourT neWsN.M. Supreme CourtSupreme Court Committee/Board VacanciesCourts of Limited Jurisdiction 2Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts 3

Appellate Court Rules 3Rules of Evidence 1Uniform Jury Instructions-Civil 1Uniform Jury Instructions-Criminal 1Children’s Court Rules 2Domestic Relations Task Force 3Disciplinary Board 2MCLE 2Code of Professional Conduct 1Board of Legal Specialization 2Board Governing the Recording of Judicial Proceedings 1 court reporter member, 1 judge member 2

Code of Judicial Conduct 3Judicial Education and Training 1Drug Court Advisory Committee 3Committee for Improvement of Jury Service 3

Attorneys interested in volunteering on any of these committees/boards may send a letter of interest and/or resume by Oct. 22 to:

Kathleen Jo Gibson, Chief ClerkPO Box 848Santa Fe, NM 87504-0848.

Interested attorneys should describe why they believe they are qualified and shall prioritize no more than three committees of interest.

Proposed Rule RevisionsProposed Revisions to the Rules of Procedure for the District Courts, Magistrate Courts, Metropolitan Court, and Municipal Courts The Joint Committee on Rules of Procedure for New Mexico State Courts has recommended for the Supreme Court’s consideration proposed rule amendments governing the appearance of clinical prac-tice law students before New Mexico state courts. Proposed Revisions to the Rules of Crimi-nal Procedure for the District Courts The Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts Committee has recommended for the Supreme Court’s consideration proposed amendments to Paragraphs I and K of Rule 5-805 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts. Proposed Revisions to the Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts and Civil Forms The Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts Committee has recom-mended proposed amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts and Civil Forms for the District Courts for the Supreme Court’s consideration.

Proposed Revisions to the Rules of Pro-cedure for the District Courts, Children’s Courts, Magistrate Courts, Metropolitan Court, and Municipal Courts The Joint Committee on Rules of Procedure for New Mexico State Courts has recommended for the Supreme Court’s consideration proposed new rules to govern criminal contempt proceedings that may arise within a civil, criminal, or children’s court proceeding. In light of the proposed new committee commentary for each rule, the joint committee also proposes withdraw-ing Appendix 5-902 NMRA. To comment on the proposed amend-ments before they are submitted to the Court for final consideration, either submit a comment electronically through the Supreme Court’s website at http://nmsu-premecourt.nmcourts.gov/ or send written comments to:

Kathleen J. Gibson, ClerkNew Mexico Supreme CourtPO Box 848Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0848

Comments must be received on or before Oct. 25 to be considered by the Court. Note that any submitted comments may be posted on the Supreme Court’s website for public viewing. For reference, see the Oct. 4 (Vol. 49, No. 40) Bar Bulletin.

http://nmsu-premecourt.nmcourts.gov




www.nmbar.org

ember benefit of the WeekMu.S. neW mexiCo federal CrediT union

Fullcreditunionservicesto•SBNM members and their employees

Low rates and flexible terms for •auto loans and home mortgages

Freeonlineandmobilebanking•

Fivelocations•

U.S.NewMexicoFederalCreditUnionprovides products and services to help their members attain

personal financial success.

Call (505) 342-8888 or visit www.usnmfcu.org.

board of bar Commissioners 2010 eleCtion notiCe Notice is hereby given that the 2010 election of six commissioners for the State Bar of New Mexico will be held Nov. 30, 2010. All six positions are three-year terms. Nominations to the office of bar commissioner shall be by the written petition of any ten or more members of the State Bar who are in good standing and whose principal place of practice is in the respective district. Members of the State Bar may nominate and sign for more than one candidate.

Nomination petitions must be received by 5 p.m., Oct. 16, to allow for the reproduction of the ballots. Mail nomination petitions to:

Executive Director Joe Conte State Bar of New Mexico PO Box 92860 Albuquerque, NM 87199-2860

Expiring terms, the nomination petition, and more information are available in the Sept. 13 (Vol. 49, No. 37) Bar Bulletin or on-line at http://www.nmbar.org/AboutSBNM/Governance/governance.html.

First and Second Judicial District CourtsNational Adoption Day National Adoption Day will be cel-ebrated Nov. 19 in the lst and 2nd Judicial districts. Attorneys and clients with pending adoptions in Santa Fe, Los Alamos, or Rio Arriba who are interested in participating should contact Shannon Bulman, (505) 820-1014 or [email protected]. Attorneys and clients with pending adop-tions in Bernalillo who are interested in participating should contact the assigned judge’s office. The deadline for both districts is Oct. 28.

Second Judicial District CourtJudicial Vacancy A vacancy on the 2nd Judicial District Court will exist in Albuquerque as of Dec. 1 upon the retirement of the Honorable Angela J. Jewell. Chief Judge Ted Baca has indicated he intends to assign the vacancy to the domestic relations division. Kevin K. Washburn, chair of the Nominating Commission, solicits applications for this position from lawyers who meet the statu-tory qualifications in Article VI, Section 14, of the New Mexico Constitution. Applica-tions may be obtained from the Judicial Selection website, http://lawschool.unm.edu/judsel/application.php, or via e-mail, fax, or mail by calling Sandra Bauman,

(505) 277-4700. The deadline for applica-tions has been extended to 5 p.m., Oct. 18. Applications received after that date will not be considered. Applicants seeking information regarding election or retention if appointed should contact the Bureau of Elections in the Office of the Secretary of State. The Judicial Nominating Commission will meet Nov. 8 at the 2nd Judicial District Courthouse, Albuquerque, to evaluate the applicants for this position. The meeting is open to the public.

Bernalillo County Metropolitan CourtCustody Arraignments Beginning Oct. 2, Saturday custody hearings, including misdemeanor arraign-ments and felony first appearances, will no longer be held. Instead, two sessions of custody arraignments will be held on Sundays. Judge Daniel Ramczyk will hear the first session of misdemeanors beginning at 9 a.m., followed immediately by felony first appearances. Judge Briana Zamora will hear the second session of misdemeanors beginning at 1 p.m., followed immediately by felony first appearances. These changes have been made in order to shift person-nel from weekends to weekdays when the customer service demands are highest. Mental Health Court Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court Chief Judge Judith Nakamura announced the appointment of Judge Linda S. Rogers

as presiding judge of the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court Mental Health Court. Judge Rogers takes over from Judge Kevin L. Fitzwater, who established the court 11 years ago. The judgeship change took place in early September. The Mental Health Court judges, along with other specialty court judges, volunteer their time to super-vise their dockets in addition to carrying full-time regular dockets.

U.S. District Court for the District of New MexicoNewly Adopted Local Rules of Civil Procedure The revised Local Rules of Civil Proce-dure of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico have been adopted effective Sept. 27. The newly adopted rules are available on the Court’s website at www.nmcourt.fed.us.Using Markup Tools In partnership with the U.S. District Court of New Mexico and the Federal Bar Association, a complimentary 90-minute training session on using PDF markup tools will be offered Oct. 19–20 in Santa Fe. Session I 8:30–10 a.m. Session II 10:30 a.m.–noon Session III 1–2:30 p.m. Attendees will learn to use a variety of PDF tools to mark portions of exhibits iden-tified for the Court’s attention and meet the requirements of the U.S. District Court for


http://www.usnmfcu.org


http://lawschool.unm

http://www.nmbar.org/AboutSBNM

http://www.nmcourt.fed.us


www.nmbar.org

the District of New Mexico Local Civil Rule 10.6. “Identifying Portions of Exhibits: Us-ing Markup Tools to Correctly Mark PDF Documents” will be taught by Court staff and a trainer specializing in computer skills. To register online, go to www.nmcourt.fed.us. CLE credit is not available.

sTaTe bar neWsAttorney Support Group • Oct. 18, 7:30 a.m.–Morning groups

meet regularly on the third Monday of the month.

• Nov. 1, 5:30 p.m.–Afternoon groups meet regularly on the first Monday of the month.

Both groups meet at the First United Methodist Church at Fourth and Lead SW, Albuquerque. For more information, contact Bill Stratvert, (505) 242-6845.

Board of EditorsBoard Vacancies Five attorney positions on the Board of Editors will expire at the end of 2010. New appointees will serve two-year terms (January 2011 to December 2012), with the option of serving a second two-year term. The Board of Editors reviews and approves

articles submitted for publication in the Bar Bulletin and the New Mexico Lawyer. Board members are asked to be available to review articles regularly, work with writers when needed, and attend quarterly board meetings in person or by teleconference. Interested attorneys with experience in publishing/editing should send resumes by Nov. 22 to Dorma Seago, [email protected]. Appointments are made by the presi-dent of the Board of Bar Commissioners.

Committee on Women and the Legal ProfessionMinzner Award Nominations Nominations are now being accepted for the 2010 Justice Pamela B. Minzner Outstanding Advocacy for Women Award, which recognizes attorneys who have dis-tinguished themselves during the prior year by providing legal assistance to women who are underrepresented or underserved or by advocating for causes that will ultimately benefit and/or further the rights of women. The Committee on Women and the Legal Profession will review the nominations and select a recipient. Submit a letter of nomina-tion summarizing the work and efforts of the nominee to Jocelyn Castillo, PO Box 27047, Albuquerque, NM 87125-7047; fax to (505) 247-3213; or e-mail [email protected]. The nomination deadline is Nov. 5. Professional Attire Program Make plans now to attend “Fashion Dos and Don’ts: A Professional Attire Presenta-tion” from 11:45 a.m. to 1:30 p.m, Oct. 26, at the UNM Student Union, Ballroom A. The program will include lunch, a panel discussion on appropriate professional attire for attorneys and a fashion show which will include tips on investing in key wardrobe items, even while on a budget. This presen-tation is also the kick-off event for the newly created “Professional Clothing Closet,” a program to provide donated clothing to law students and members of the State Bar. Lunch is free for law students and for at-torneys who donate a suit to the Professional Clothing Closet. The cost of lunch without a clothing donation is $8.50. R.S.V.P. to Jocelyn Castillo, [email protected], by Oct. 22 and indicate whether you will be donating professional clothing or will be paying for lunch. Visit http://www.nmbar.org/AboutSBNM/Committees/Women/womenprofessioncommittee.html for more information.

Family Law SectionAnnual Meeting and CLE The Family Law Section will hold its annual meeting during lunch Oct. 15 in conjunction with the 2010 Family Law Institute. All section members are encouraged to attend. Send agenda items to Chair Lynn Perls, [email protected]. See the CLE-At-a-Glance insert in this issue of the Bar Bulletin for details. Register online at www.nmbarcle.org or fax to (505) 797-6071.

Paralegal DivisionLuncheon CLE Series The Paralegal Division invites members of the legal community to bring a lunch and attend Investigating the Discrimination Claim (1.0 general CLE credit) presented by Wil-liam Dooley Gilchrist of Davis & Gilchrist PC. The program will be held from noon to 1 p.m., Oct. 13, at the State Bar Center. The registration fee is $16 for attorneys, $10 for members of the Paralegal Division, and $15 for non-members. Registration begins at the door at 11:45 a.m. For more information, contact Cheryl Passalaqua, (505) 247-0411, or Evonne Sanchez, (505) 222-9356.

Prosecutors Section Annual Meeting The Prosecutors Section will hold its annual meeting at noon, Oct. 27, during the Association of District Attorneys Fall Conference at the Marriott Pyramid, Albu-querque. Send agenda items to Chair Janice Schryer, [email protected].

2010 seCtion eleCtions In accordance with section bylaws, each State Bar section is required to appoint a nominating committee for its annual election and provide notice of the election so that any section member may indicate his or her interest in serving on the board of directors. Interested section members should contact a member of the nominating committee by Oct. 11. Visit www.nmbar.org/AboutSBNM/sections/sectionelec-tions.html to see the available board positions and contact information for nominating committee chairs. Candi-dates should be prepared to submit a three-to-five sentence biography.

board of bar Commissioners Commission/Board Vacancies

Client Protection Fund ■Commission

The Board of Bar Commissioners will make one appointment to the Cli-ent Protection Fund Commission for a three-year term.

New Mexico Legal Aid ■ The Board of Bar Commissioners will make two appointments to the New Mexico Legal Aid Board. One of the terms is for one year and the other term is for three years.

Members wishing to serve should send a letter of interest and brief resume by Nov. 19 to:

Executive Director Joe ConteState Bar of New MexicoPO Box 92860Albuquerque, NM 87199-2860or fax to (505) 828-3765; or e-mail to [email protected].


http://www.nmcourt.fed



http://www.nmbar

http://www.nmbar


http://www.nmbarcle




www.nmbar.org

Public Law SectionAnnual Meeting and CLE The Public Law Section will hold its annual meeting during lunch, Oct. 22, in conjunction with the 2010 New Mexico Administrative Law Institute at the State Bar Center. All section members are encour-aged to attend. Send agenda items to Chair James Martin, [email protected]. See the CLE-At-a-Glance insert in this issue of the Bar Bulletin for details. Register online at www.nmbarcle.org or fax to (505) 797-6071.

Senior Lawyers DivisionBoard of Directors Election The Senior Lawyers Division Nominating Committee has nominated the members listed below. Additional nominations may be made by Oct. 29 in the form of a petition signed by at least 10 members of the division. Visit http://www.nmbar.org/AboutSBNM/SLD/SLDelection.html for more informa-tion and to download a petition. Position #1 Term: 2009–2011 Position #2 Term: 2009–2011 Position #10 Term: 2011–2013 Nominees: Martin Lopez, David L.

Mathews, Michael Milligan, Donald Becker and Bradford Zeikus

Position #3 Term: 2009–2011 Nominee: Robert S. Simon Position #4 Term: 2009–2011 Nominee: Ronald T. Taylor Position #5 Term: 2009–2011 Nominee: Anthony J. Williams Position #6 Term: 2011–2013 Nominee: William J. Arland Position #7 Term: 2011–2013 Nominee: Daniel J. Behles Position #8 Term: 2011–2013 Nominee: John P. Burton Position #9 Term: 2011–2013 Nominee: Virginia L. Ferrara Position #11 Term: 2011–2013 Nominee: Anita Podell Miller

Trial Practice SectionLaw Student Writing Competition The Trial Practice Section is sponsoring a writing competition for UNM law students. The goal of the competition is to encourage and reward law student writings on legal subjects within the scope of the section and of general and current interest. It is also designed to attract students to the civil trial fields and to strongly encourage scholarship in these areas. The deadline to submit entries

Welcome, NeW members of the state bar

The State Bar welcomes our newest members (see cover story on page 10 and list of new admittees on page 17). New member packets have been mailed to all new admittees. The packet includes the 2010–2011 Bench & Bar Directory, a description of services offered by the State Bar, and the 2010 registration fee statement. Visit http://www.nmbar.org/Attorneys/dues/dues.html for more information, due dates, and instructions on paying online. If you need assistance, call (505) 797-6035.

is Nov. 19. For complete contest rules, visit http://www.nmbar.org/AboutSBNM/sections/TrialPractice/trialpracticesection.html.

Young Lawyers Division2010 ABA YLD Fall Conference Join YLD to connect, collaborate and learn with approximately 300–350 ABA YLD members from across the country for the 2010 ABA YLD Fall Conference Oct. 14–16 at the El Dorado Hotel and Spa in Santa Fe. For more information about regis-tration or sponsorship opportunities, contact Martha Chicoski, [email protected], or visit www.abanet.org/yld/fall10. 2010 Election All members of the State Bar who have practiced law for five years or less or are under the age of 36 are eligible to serve on the YLD board of directors. The following positions are currently available: director-at-large, position 2; director-at-large, position 4; region 2 director (1st, 4th, 8th, and 10th Judicial districts); region 4 director (3rd, 6th, and 12th Judicial districts and Sierra County); and region 5 director (2nd and 13th Judicial districts and Catron, Socorro and Torrance counties). For more informa-tion and to obtain a nomination petition, visit http://www.nmbar.org/AboutSBNM/YLD/YLDelection.html. Petitions must be received in the State Bar office by 5 p.m., Oct. 15. Should any of the positions be contested, ballots will be mailed Oct. 25.Volunteers NeededWill for Heroes The Young Lawyers Division seeks at-torney volunteers for a Wills for Heroes event from 9 a.m., to 2 p.m., Oct. 23, at the Rio Rancho Police Department, 500 Quantum Road, Rio Rancho. Attorneys will draft wills and healthcare powers of attorney, free of charge, for qualified first responders. No prior experience with wills or estate planning is needed. This is a great opportunity to honor first responders and provide a valuable service at the same time.

Volunteers must have their own PC laptop computers (sorry no Macs), but everything else will be provided and supervised. For more information or to volunteer, contact Martha Chicoski, [email protected], by Oct. 15.

oTher barsNew Mexico Black Lawyers AssociationElectronic Evidence CLE The New Mexico Black Lawyers As-sociation will present Electronic Evidence: Can You Get It In? Can You Preserve It? (4.0 general, 1.0 professionalism, and 1.0 ethics CLE credits) from 8 a.m., to 4:30 p.m., Oct. 22, at the African American Performing Arts Center, New Mexico Expo. Speakers include Justice Edward L. Chávez, Christine Long, Randi McGinn, Judge Linda Vanzi, Kenny Calhoun, Regina Moss, Judge Robert Robles, Howard R. Thomas, and Michael Hoses. Register at http://www.newmexico-blacklawyersassociation.org/cle.html. For more information, call (505) 450-1032.

New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers AssociationDWI Defense CLE A live DWI mock trial demonstration is the linchpin of this year’s annual DWI Defense CLE sponsored by the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association Oct. 29 at UNM Continuing Education. The seminar is for intermediate and advanced practitioners. The mock trial will feature a real judge, former prosecutor and DWI police officer. Case law and rules update, client testimony, and use of experts are additional topics to be covered. Find reg-istration information at www.nmcdla.org, [email protected] or call (505) 992-0050.





http://www.nmbar.org/Attorneys/dues/dues.html



http://www.abanet.org/yld/fall10



http://www.newmexico-blacklawyersassociation.org/cle.html



http://www.nmcdla.org



www.nmbar.org

unMSchool of LawFall Library HoursTo Dec. 18Building and Circulation Monday–Thursday 8 a.m.–10 p.m. Friday 8 a.m.–6 p.m. Saturday 8 a.m.–5 p.m. Sunday Noon–8 p.m.Reference Monday–Friday 9 a.m.–6 p.m. Saturday No Reference Sunday Noon–4 p.m.

oTher neWsChristian Legal Aid New Volunteer Training Christian Legal Aid of New Mexico will host a seminar for new volunteers from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m., Oct. 29, at the State Bar Center. Volunteers are invited to join the organization to help secure justice for the poor and uphold the cause of the needy. Learn the basics of providing legal aid and enjoy a free lunch. For more information or to register, contact Jen Meisner, (505) 610-8800 or [email protected].

Red MassTradition Continues The annual Red Mass will be held at noon, Oct. 15, at the Immaculate Conception Church in Albuquerque. All judges, lawyers, paralegals and support staff, members of law enforcement, and anyone interested in the administration of justice are invited to attend. The annual event, a tradition in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe since 1978, is celebrated to seek Divine guidance for those who participate in the administration of justice. Liturgists will consist of judges and lawyers of various denominations and religions.

Women’s bar holds membership reCeption

(Top) Jeannie Hunt, Erika Anderson and Martha Chicoski greet attendees at a reception hosted by the New Mexico Women’s Bar Association Sept. 28 at the Hotel Andaluz in Albuquerque.(Above) Patricia Galindo, Leslie Maxwell, and Judge Beatrice Brickhouse connect at the reception.(Right) Henry Alaniz and Willow Misty Parks were among many supporters who attended the reception. The Women’s Bar Association, which has not been ac-tive for some time, is currently conducting a member-ship drive in order to revitalize the organization.




Since 2007, local judicial district pro bono committees across the state have been

developing and implementing projects to help low income New Mexicans access much needed legal services. In 2009, volunteer attorneys provided 275,733 hours of pro bono services to the residents of New Mexico. October 24–30 is Na-tional Pro Bono Week, a time to recognize those attorneys who stepped up to the plate. Justices from the New Mexico Supreme Court will be attending exciting recognition events that will be going on throughout New Mexico.

Santa FeAttorneys will be recognized at a luncheon and seminar (Addressing the Needs of Pro Se Litigants, 1.0 professional CLE credit) from 11:30 to 1:30, Oct. 26, at the Santa Fe Hilton. The cost for the luncheon and the seminar is $19. R.S.V.P. by sending a check, payable to the lst Judicial District Bar Association, to Joanne Trujillo, lst Judicial District Court, PO Box 2268, Santa Fe, NM 87504 by Oct. 22. Payment cannot be made at the door. For more information, call (505) 455-8145.

Las VegasThe 4th Judicial District will celebrate their pro bono attorneys at a luncheon to be held at noon, Oct. 27, at the El Rialto Restaurant in Las Vegas. Contact Judge Matthew J. Sandoval (505) 425-9352.

distriCt pro bono Committees to honor loCal attorneysVolunteer attorneys provide 275,733 hours of pro bono services ■

seCond JudiCial distriCt pro bono Committee to host largest laW-la-palooza ever

“It is fundamental that justice should be the same . . . without regard to economic status.” ■ U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, Jr.

By Judge Clay P. Campbell Second Judicial District Court Pro Bono Committee

In celebration of the upcoming Pro Bono Week, the Second Judicial District Court’s Pro Bono Committee is excited to announce plans for its biggest Law-La-Palooza free legal fair ever. The Law-La-Palooza, which provides up to 30 minutes of free legal information or advice to each customer, will take place from noon to 5:30 p.m., Oct. 28, at the Albuquerque Convention Center. Space at the Conven-tion Center has been generously provided by the City of Albuquerque. “This event represents a unique joint venture among all of the legal service providers in Bernalillo County, including Pegasus, New Mexico Legal Aid, United South Broadway Corporation, Law Access New Mexico, the Albuquerque Partnership, and ENLACE NM,” said Committee Co-Chair Judge Nan Nash. “The State Bar Young Lawyers Division will also be operating its Wills for Heroes program at the event. Even the Mexican Consulate has agreed to provide interpreters.” Pre-event publicity is targeting U.S. servicemen and women through active duty channels (the Reserves, and the Veterans’ Administra-tion); unions for the Albuquerque Police Department, Albuquerque Fire Department, and the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office; all of the other unions in the area, including those for government employees and teachers; and the poorest neighborhoods in Bernalillo County. “With the selfless help of our attorneys” said Judge Nash, “past events targeting single neighborhoods have helped as many as 130 low to no income customers. We are hoping to help as many as 500 people with this one event.” Judge Shannon Bacon, the newest member of the Pro Bono Committee, added: “Our goal is ambitious. We can do it, but we need the help of volunteer attorneys.” Attorneys can volunteer for the entire event, or for any size time blocks their schedules allow. While lawyers are needed in some obvious poverty driven areas such as public assistance benefits, landlord/tenant, foreclosure, and bankruptcy law, past events have shown a need in other legal areas such as domestic relations, immigration, and criminal law as well. Interested attorneys should contact Rosalie Fragoso of Law Access New Mexico, (505) 944-7167, ext. 124.

Silver CityThe 6th Judicial District will celebrate their pro bono attorneys at a luncheon to be

held at 11 a,m., Oct. 27, at Diane’s Res-taurant in Silver City. Contact Barbara Raif, New Mexico Legal Aid, (575) 388-0091.Farmington

The 11th Judicial District-San Juan County will celebrate National Pro Bono

Week with a Volunteer Lawyer Program Recognition Luncheon at noon, Oct. 28, at the San Juan

Country Club. The luncheon will recognize the significant outreach to the community by volunteer lawyers and University of Denver law students during their 1st Annual “Spring into Action” week-long event. Contact Richard Austin, [email protected] The 2nd Judicial District will recognize volunteer attorneys at 1:30 p.m., Oct. 28, at the Albuquerque Convention Center during the Law-La-Palooza Pro Bono Legal Fair. Contact Judge Campbell, [email protected]. (See story below.)

The Access to Justice Commission wishes to thank and congratulate all the outstanding attorneys who have given of their time and resources over the last year. Their commitment and generosity have made a difference in the lives of those individuals who have benefitted from their expertise and talent.

pro bono Week

oCtober 24–30




“the Culmination of hard Work and saCrifiCe”N.M. Supreme Court Accepts New Admittees ■

By Dorma Seago

State Bar President Steve Shanor stood before the gathered group of new admittees and their

families and acknowledged the day as the “culmina-tion of hard work and sacrifice for you, your family and your friends.” The swearing in ceremony took place Sept. 20 in the Kiva Auditorium in Albuquerque. Young Lawyers Division Chair Martha Chicoski encour-aged the new attorneys to take get involved in the division’s numerous social and community service activities. Mary Torres, representing the American Bar Association, advised that participating in prac-tice sections “enhances ones practice.” Torres also asked them to remember the first sentence of the Creed of Professionalism: “My word is my bond.” Briggs Cheney described the support available through the Lawyers Assistance Program and shared his moving story of addiction and recovery. As Board of Bar Examiners chair M. David Chacon read the names, movants rose to present sons and daughters, spouses, siblings, and friends to the Court, relating stories of sacrifice, hard work, achievement, and dreams come true. The ceremony was once again characterized by time-honored traditions unique to New Mexico—each new admittee signed the Roll of Attorneys, each new admittee was individually presented to the court, and each New Mexico Supreme Court justice addressed the new attorneys.

attorney oath rule 15-304 nmraYou do solemnly swear or affirm:

You will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New Mexico;

You will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;

You will comply with the rules of professional conduct adopted by the New Mexico Supreme Court;

You will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding which shall appear to you to be unjust nor any defense except such as you believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land;

You will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to you such means only as are consistent with truth and honor and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law;

You will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of your clients and will accept no compensation in connection with their business except from them or with their knowledge and approval;

You will maintain civility at all times, abstain from all offensive personality, and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness unless required by the justice of the cause with which you are charged;

You will never reject from any consideration personal to yourself the cause of the defenseless or oppressed or delay any person's cause for lucre or malice.

Briggs Cheney

Mary Torres

M. David Chacon

Steve Shanor

Sean Sebastian Ramirez

Rebecca Ann Torres

Marshall Neel

Nathan Stewart Stimson

Jennifer Morris Anderson


TidbiTs and TriviaTwo sets of brothers were sworn in: Charles Howard Kalm and Karl Frederick Kalm, sons of Thomas L. Kalm, Esq.; and Brett Jonathan Danoff and Ryan Paul Danoff, twin sons of Michael L. Danoff, Esq.

A total of seven family members moved admission.

Tiffany A. Hammer already has five cases awaiting her attention.

Justice Patricio Serna marked his 28th anniversary of participating in the new admittee ceremony, calling it the “highlight of being a Supreme Court justice.”

The Roll of Attorneys dates back to New Mexico’s territorial days in the 1800s and is currently in its fourth volume.

Attorney Jeff Albright congratulates Marine Corps Lt. R.B. Nichols.

Jennifer Landau (above) moves Megan Yoder Martinez for admission. Ryan McKelvey and Brian Close (top right) are newly sworn in attorneys. Jeffrey Driggers (right) was moved for admission by his mother, Marcia B. Driggers.

Attorney General Gary King moves Michael Haley Gritzbaugh for admission.

Julie Catron was moved for admission by her father, Fletcher Catron, making Julia the fifth generation attorney in the Catron family.

“It’s awesome,” said Nicholas Genicoff as he watches his father Alan sign the Roll of Attorneys.

Thomas Braden Fitzwater is moved for admission by his father, Hon. Kevin L. Fitzwater.

See page 17 for a complete liSting of new admitteeS.

Now on Facebook and Twitter

Fall 2010

CLE AT·A·GLANCEContinuing Legal Education Guide

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY:Assisting Clients to Avoid the Holes in the Social Safety Net

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 • State Bar Center, Albuquerque A.M. SESSION: 2.7 General CLE Credits

EITHER A.M. SESSION or P.M. SESSIONr Standard Fee $109 r Solo and Small Firm Section Member, Government, Legal Services Attorney, Paralegal $ 95

BOTH A.M. and P.M. SESSIONSr Standard Fee $199 r Solo and Small Firm Section Member, Government, Legal Services Attorney, Paralegal $169

Co-Sponsor: Solo and Small Firm Section

A.M. SESSION8:30 a.m. Registration9:00 a.m. Introduction to Workers’ Compensation George Wright Weeth, Esq., Weeth Law Office •TheQuidProQuo:NoFaultvs.ExclusiveRemedy •BreakingOutofWorkersComp:DelgadoClaims •Third-PartyTortRecoveries:NegligenceandProduct

Liability •ReimbursementoftheEmployer/Insurer9:30 a.m. Medical Treatment •SelectionoftheHealthCareProvider(HCP) •ChangingtheHCP •TheIndependentMedicalExam(IME) •MaximumMedicalImprovement(MMI)

10:00 a.m. WC Benefits: A Brief Overview •TemporaryTotalDisability •TemporaryPartialDisability •PermanentPartialDisability •ScheduledInjuryBenefits •PermanentTotalDisability10:30a.m. Break10:45 a.m. Mediation •FormalHearing:DiscoverytoTrial •Attorney’sFees •LumpSumSettlementOptions11:15 a.m. When to Apply for Social Security Disability •Workers’CompensationOffset •MinimizingtheOffsetthroughLumpSumSettlement •MedicareSetAsideAgreementsNoon Lunch(providedattheStateBarCenter)

also available viaLIVE WEBCAST

P.M. SESSION1:00p.m. Introductory Remarks and Course Overview George Wright Weeth, Esq., Weeth Law Office1:10p.m. The Statutory and Regulatory Framework,

The Substantial Gainful Activity Traps Gary Martone, Esq., Martone Law Firm PA1:55p.m. Marshaling Medical Evidence, Preparing The Client,

“Listings,” “Grids,” Date Last Insured (DLI) and Disability Onset Date Issues, Presenting Your Case to the Administrative Law Judge

Helen Laura Lopez, Esq., Law Office of Helen Laura Lopez

2:40p.m. Break2:55 P.M. Appeals to the SSA Appeals Council, U.S. District Court,

Tenth Circuit and the Uniqueness of Representing Disabled Children

Francesca MacDowell, Esq., Martone Law Firm 3:40p.m. View from the Bench U.S. Administrative Law Judge James Burke4:10p.m. Q&A4:40p.m. Adjourn

REPRESENTING CLAIMANTS IN SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY APPEALS

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 • State Bar Center, Albuquerque P.M. SESSION: 3.4 General CLE Credits

EITHER A.M. SESSION or P.M. SESSIONr Standard Fee $109 r Solo and Small Firm Section Member, Government, Legal Services Attorney, Paralegal $ 95

BOTH A.M. and P.M. SESSIONSr Standard Fee $199 r Solo and Small Firm Section Member, Government, Legal Services Attorney, Paralegal $169

Co-Sponsor: Solo and Small Firm Section


CLE AT-A-GLANCE - 2

2010 FAMILY LAW INSTITUTE Friday-Saturday, October 15-16, 2010

State Bar Center, Albuquerque10.0 General, 1.0 Ethics, & 1.0 Professionalism CLE Credits

r Standard Fee $339 r Family Law Section Member, Government, Legal Services Attorney, Paralegal $309Co-Sponsor: Family Law Section

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15 8:00 a.m. Registration8:25 a.m. Introductory Remarks and Course Overview Lynn Perls, Esq, Chair, Family Law Section8:30 a.m. Uniform Parentage Act, Equitable Parentage,

Psychological Parentage Shannon Minter, Esq., Legal Director, National Center for

Lesbian Rights, San Francisco10:30a.m. Break10:45 a.m. National Trends in Custody and Parentage in the Context

of Unmarried Parents as well as Implications for Domestic Partners (Both Same Sex and Opposite Sex)

Shannon Minter, Esq.Noon Lunch(providedattheStateBarCenter) FamilyLawSectionAnnualMeeting1:00p.m. Stepparent Custody, Grandparent Custody, Foster

Parent Custody Ann N. Haralambie, Esq., Ann N. Haralambie, P.C.,

Tucson, Arizona3:00p.m. Break3:15p.m. Other Third Party Custody, Kinship Guardianship, and

Third Party Visitation Ann N. Haralambie5:00p.m. Adjourn

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 168:30 a.m. Registration9:00 a.m. Child Support and Third Party Custody Hon. Mary Marlowe, 1st Judicial District Court10:00a.m. Break10:15 a.m. Non-Traditional Families and Third Party Custody: A

Panel Discussion Larry Kronen, Esq., Pegasus Legal Services for Children Lynn Perls, Esq, Board Certified Specialist in Family Law Professor Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, UNM School of Law Shannon Minter, Esq.12:15p.m. Lunch(providedattheStateBarCenter)12:45p.m. Professionalism(1.0P) Professor Antoinette Sedillo Lopez1:45p.m. Malpractice Issues for the Family Law Attorney(1.0E) Lawyers Professional Liability Committee2:45p.m. Adjourn


2010 NEW MEXICO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW INSTITUTE Friday, October 22, 2010 • State Bar Center, Albuquerque

4.5 General, 1.0 Ethics, 1.0 Professionalism CLE Credits

r Standard Fee $209 r Public Law Member, Government, Legal Services Attorney, Paralegal $179

Co-Sponsor: Public Law Section

8:00 a.m. Registration8:25 a.m. Introductory Remarks and Course Overview James C. Martin, Chairman, Public Law Section8:30 a.m. New Mexico Administrative Law Update Professor Eileen Gauna, UNM School of Law9:45 a.m. Public Records Act, and Inspection of Public Records

Act John Martinez, Director, Administrative Law Division, NM

State Records Center and Archives Mona Valicenti, Assistant Attorney General,

NM Attorney General’s Office10:45a.m. Break11:00 a.m. The New Model Administrative Procedures Act John Martinez, Director, Administrative Law Division, NM

State Records Center and Archives12:00p.m. Lunch(providedattheStateBarCenter) PublicLawSectionAnnualMeeting

1:00p.m. Panel Discussion: The Use and Practice of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Government

Moderator: Stephen Ross, County Attorney, County of Santa Fe

Panelists: William Herrmann, Chief Hearing Examiner, NM Public Regulation Commission

Darcy Bushnell, Utton Center Shannon Beaucaire, ADR Coordinator,

City of Albuquerque2:15p.m. Ethical Issues in E-Discovery and Electronic Record

Retention(1.0E) Victoria Garcia, General Counsel, Department of Information

Technology3:15p.m. Break3:30p.m. Professionalism: Pro Bono Practice and the Public

Sector(1.0P) Hon. Sarah Singleton, First Judicial District Court4:30p.m. Adjourn


CLE AT-A-GLANCE - 3

THE TRIBAL LAW & ORDER ACT: Changes in the Landscape of Indian Criminal Law


Thursday, November 4, 2010State Bar Center, Albuquerque

2.2 General & 1.0 Professionalism CLE Creditsr Standard Fee $119 r Indian Law Section Member, Government, Legal Services Attorney, Paralegal $105

Co-Sponsor: Indian Law Section

TheTribalLawandOrderActof2010willgivetribesandthefederalgovernmentthenecessarytoolstoaddresscomplexjurisdictionalissuesbyenhancingtheIndianCountrycriminaljusticesystemandimprovingcoordinationandcommunication.TheActprovidesforincreasedpenaltiesthatTribesmayimposeundertheIndianCivilRightsAct.However,therearecertaincivilrightsanddueprocessrequirementsthatmustbemetbytheTribeinordertoimposesuchincreasedsentences.ForlawyersinvolvedincriminalcasesinIndianCountry,learningaboutthenewlawanditsimplicationsiscrucial.TribesmayberequiredtoamendcurrenttribalcriminallawsinordertomeetthenewrequirementsundertheAct.

8:00 a.m. Registration8:30 a.m. Introductory Remarks and Course Overview Helen B. Padilla, Esq., (Isleta Pueblo) ILS Board Member,

Director, American Indian Law Center, Inc.8:35 a.m. Background of the Tribal Law & Order Act of 2010 John Harte, Esq., San Felipe Pueblo, Partner, Mapetsi Policy

Group and former Policy Director, U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee

9:45 a.m. What Do Tribes Do Now? New Requirements for Tribal Courts and Tribal Criminal Codes to Meet Civil Rights and Due Process Requirements of the Act

Professor Barbara Creel (Jemez Pueblo), UNM School of Law10:40a.m. Break

10:55 a.m. Different Roles of Lawyers in Criminal Cases in Indian Country(1.0P)

Lawyerrepresentingthefederalgovernmentasprosecutor Lawyerrepresentingthetribeastribalprosecutor Lawyerrepresentingcriminaldefendantsinfederalcases Lawyerrepresentingcriminaldefendantsintribalcases Moderator, Professor Gloria Valencia-Weber, UNM School of

Law, ILS Board Member Panelists: Kyle Nayback (Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa), Assistant U.S.

Attorney, Albuquerque. Steve McCue, Federal Public Defender, District of New Mexico Carrie Martell, Esq., Assistant Tribal Prosecutor, Hopi Tribe David Adams, Esq., Tribal Prosecutor, Pueblo of Laguna Delilah Choneska, Esq., (Santo Domingo Pueblo), New Mexico

Legal Aid, Native American Program 11:55a.m.Lunch(providedattheStateBarCenter) Traditional Native American food with guest speaker on

Alternative Lending in Indian Country1:00p.m. IndianLawSectionAnnualMeetingfollowedbyIndian

LawSectionBoardofDirectorsMeeting

2010 BUSINESS LAW INSTITUTEFriday, November 5, 2010

State Bar Center, Albuquerque6.5 General CLE Credits

r Standard Fee $ 209 r Business Law Section Member, Government, Legal Services Attorney, Paralegal $179

Co-Sponsor: Business Law Section

8:00 a.m. Registration8:30 a.m. Documenting the Business Sale in Difficult Economic

Times James J. Widland, Esq., Miller Stratvert PA9:30 a.m. Employment Law Considerations for Business Lawyers:

Hiring, Wage and Hour Laws, Downsizing and Layoffs Christa M. Hazlett, Esq., Conklin Woodcock & Ziegler PC10:15a.m. Break10:30 a.m. Keeping Your Non-Compete Clauses Out of Litigation Gary J. Van Luchene, Esq, Keleher & McLeod PA W. Spencer Reid, Esq., Keleher & McLeod PA11:15 a.m. Banking Law Reform Update Erik F. Gerding, Esq., Professor, UNM School of Law

Noon Lunch(providedattheStateBarCenter)1:00p.m. How Business Lawyers Can ‘Do’ Due Diligence Using

Free Internet Sites Carole Levitt, Esq., Internet For Lawyers Mark Rosch, Internet For Lawyers2:45p.m. Break3:00p.m. How Business Lawyers Can ‘Do’ Due Diligence

(continued) Carole Levitt, Esq., Internet for Lawyers Mark Rosch, Internet for Lawyers4:30p.m. AdjournandReception(StateBarLobby)


CLE AT-A-GLANCE - 4

SOLO’S AT SEASONS RESTAURANT


ADVANCED SETTLEMENT SKILLS: HOW TO SETTLE A CASEwith Conflict Resolution Expert Nina Meierding

Friday, November 12, 2010 • State Bar Center, Albuquerque6.5 General CLE Credits

r Standard Fee $ 229 r Government, Legal Services Attorney, Paralegal $199Co-Sponsors: First and Second Judicial District Courts

8:00 a.m. Registration9:00 a.m. The Beginning Impacts The Ending - Pro-active

Techniques to Secure Positive Outcomes •TheArtofFramingManageableQuestions •TheArtofEngagement-DevelopingRapportThrough

SensoryModalityMatchingandMirroring •ReframingIssues-ReframingLanguage •TheArtofListening-the80/20Rule10:15a.m. Break10:30 a.m. When Resistance Happens -

Dealing with Impasses •DiagnosingSourcesofResistance •MatchingaStrategyforImpassewiththeSourceof

Resistances-TechniquestoMoveForwardNoon Lunch(providedattheStateBarCenter)1:00p.m. The Impact of Culture on Communication, Negotiation

and Mediation •MonchronicandPolychronicCommunication •HighandLowContextCommunication

•HighandLowUncertaintyAvoidanceandSituationalDistrust

•IndividualisticandCollectiveCultures-AttitudesTowardsRelationships

•TheoriesofFairness,Truth,RevengeandForgiveness2:30p.m. Break2:45p.m. The Impact of Gender on Communication, Negotiation

and Mediation •RapportandReportTalk •CrossTalkingandOverlappingSpeech •IndirectandDirectLanguage •RitualOpposition •Humor •Apology4:00p.m. When Is A Deal A Deal? •SecretsofSatisfaction-SecuringaDurableAgreement •MovingBeyondaDealtoaFullResolution4:30p.m. Q & A Discussion5:00p.m. Adjourn

FIRST ANNUAL ADR INSTITUTE(For Lawyers, Negotiators, Facilitators, Collaborators, Mediators, Clinicians)

Friday, October 22, 2010 • Season’s Restaurant in Old Town, 2031 Mountain Rd. NW, Albuquerque, NM 871041.0 Ethics CLE Credits

r Standard Fee $45 Co-Sponsor: Solo and Small Firm Section

3:30p.m. Registration4:00p.m. Solo and Small Firm Annual Meeting

5:00p.m. CLE Hon. William F. Lang, Eaton Law Office PC6:00p.m. Adjourn

STATE BAR VIDEO REPLAYS - State Bar Center, Albuquerque

OCTOBER19 ABCs of Foreclosure Law(2010)3.7G 8:30a.m.-12:15p.m. r $119

25th Annual Bankruptcy Year in Review(2010)6.0G,1.0P

8:45a.m.-4:15p.m. r $219

Multitasking Gone Mad: Learning to Cope in a Wired, Demanding World (2010)

4.2G,1.2E 9:00a.m.-3:00p.m. r $199

26 Skeptically Determining the Limits of Expert Testimony and Evidence(2010)4.7G,1.0E,1.0P

8:30a.m.-3:45p.m. r $219

Winning Demonstrative Exhibits (DavidGross)

(2010AnnualMeeting)1.0G 9:00-10:00a.m. r $49

The Travelling Lawyer(JimCalloway) (2010AnnualMeeting)1.0G

10:15-11:15a.m. r $49

Digital Workflow: Developing the Paperless Habit(DebbieFoster)

(2010AnnualMeeting)1.0G 11:30a.m.-12:30p.m. r $49

Animal Law: Legislation, Litigation, Ethics, and Professionalism(2010)

4.0G,1.0E,1.0P 8:45a.m.-3:15p.m. r $199

NOVEMBER2 Creditors Rights, Collections, and

Bankruptcy(2010)4.0G,1.0E 9:00a.m.-2:30p.m. r $179

Success as a Lawyer(DavidGross) (2010AnnualMeeting)1.0G 8:45-9:45a.m. r $49

The Inbox Ninja(AdrinaLinares) (2010AnnualMeeting)1.0G 10:00-11:00a.m. r $49

2010 Professionalism and Ethics: Responding to Crisis through Limited Representation1.0E,1.0P

8:30-10:30a.m. r $79

7th Annual Elder Law Seminar(2010) 3.7G 12:30-4:15p.m. r $149

CLE AT-A-GLANCE - 5

2010 BRIDGE THE GAPFriday, November 19, 2010 • State Bar Center, Albuquerque

5.0 General, 1.0 Ethics, & 1.0 Professionalism CLE Creditsr Standard Fee $ 219 r Government, Legal Services Attorney, Paralegal $189 r YLD Member $119

Co-Sponsor: Young Lawyers Division

7:30a.m. Registration8:00 a.m. State Bar Overview Joe Conte, Executive Director, State Bar of New Mexico

BREAKOUTS9:00 a.m. Trial Techniques Daniel O’Brien, Esq. , O’Brien & Ulibarri PC, Albuquerque Sandra B. Byer, O’Brien & Ulibarri PC, Albuquerque Prepping for a Criminal Case Phil Sapien, Esq., Sapien Law LLC Jeremy Pena, Esq., 2nd Judicial District Attorney’s Office10:00a.m. Break

BREAKOUTS10:15 a.m. Things to Avoid in Filing an Appeal Kelly Scot Street, Esq., New Mexico Court of Appeals Depositions and Written Discovery Brent Bailey, Esq., Dixon Scholl & Bailey PA Steve Scholl, Esq., Dixon Scholl & Bailey PA 11:15 a.m. Emotional Intelligence(1.0P) Arturo Jaramillo, Esq., Cabinet Secretary,

NM General Services Department

12:15p.m. Lunch(providedattheStateBarCenter)1:00p.m. Do’s and Don’ts from the Bench Hon. Charles W. Daniels, Chief Justice,

New Mexico Supreme Court Hon. Victor Valdez , Metro Court, Albuquerque Hon. Linda Vanzi, New Mexico Court of Appeals Hon. Clay Campbell2:00p.m. Disciplinary Board(1.0E) Ann Taylor, Staff Attorney, Disciplinary Board,

NM Supreme Court Lisa Pullen, Civerolo Gralow Hill & Curtis PA,

Disciplinary Board Member3:00p.m. Break

BREAKOUTS3:15p.m. USERRA, Servicemembers Civil Relief Act James McKay, Esq. Immigration Law John W. Lawit, Lawit & Kitson4:15p.m. AdjournandReception(StateBarCenter)


NATIONAL SERIESMust register for teleseminars online at www.nmbarcle.org

NATIONAL TELESEMINARS • 11 a.m. MDT

OCTOBER 19 2010 American With Disabilities Act UpdateThisannualupdatewillprovideyouwithacomprehensiveguidetolegisla-tive,regulatoryandcaselawdevelopmentsconcerningtheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct.Amongothertopics,theprogramwilldiscusscaselawreac-tiontotherecentADAAmendmentsActandhowformerpracticeinthisareahaschanged.1.0 General CLE Credit r $67

21 Real Estate Finance: Sources of CapitalThisprogramwilldiscussemergingsourcesof individualand institutionalinvestmentcapitalforrealestatedeals. Theprogramtrendsindealterms,what investorsaredemanding, themosthighlynegotiatedpartsofdeals,and how to document deals for optimal flexibility and tax efficiency. 1.0 General CLE Credit r $67

26 Innocent Spouse DefenseWhenacouplefilesajointreturn,theybecomejointlyandseverallyliabilityforthetaxliability.Therearetaxbenefitstofilingjointly,butoftenthingsintherelationshipmaygowrongandonespouseisleftwithasubstantialtaxliabilitythatheorshecannotpay.Thisprogramwillprovideyouwithaprac-ticalguidetoassertingandsuccessfullyobtainingthe“innocent”or“injuredspouse”defensestotaxliability.1.0 General CLE Credit r $67

28 Dangers of Using “Units” in LLC PlanningTheuseof“units” inLLCshasbecomeawidespreadconceptualanddraft-ing substitute for sharesof stock. Units simplify theprocessofallocatingeconomic spoils, governance and dissolution. But they are deceptivelysimple and can lead to substantial unintended consequences. This pro-gramwill provide you a practical guide to the dangers of using units inLLCplanningandhowtoresolvethoseproblemsinnewandexistingLLCs. 1.0 General CLE Credit r $67

NOVEMBER 2-3 Maximizing Tax Benefits in Real Estate, Parts 1 & 2Optimizingthetaxstrategyof realestatedealscanbeas importantasanyotheraspectofthedeal.Thisprogramwillprovideyouaframeworkforana-lyzingthetaxefficiencyofrealestatedeals.Amongothertopics,theprogramwillcoverchoiceofentity,theconversionofincomeintocapitalgain,dealerissues,andtaxplanningatvariousstagesofthelifecycleofarealestatedeal. 2.0 General CLE Credits r $129

9 Uniform Commercial Code Toolkit, Part 1: Promissory Notes

Thefirstinthethree-party“UCCToolkit”series,thisprogramwillprovideyouaframeworkfordraftingbullet-proofpromissorynotes.Amongothertopics,theprogramwillcovertheapplicabilityofUCCArticle3/neogiatiableinstru-mentstopromissorynotes,themeaningof“boiler-plate”waives,”mechanicsforthepurchaseorsaleofapromissorynote,andrightsoflenderswhotakepledgesinnotes,amongothertopics.1.0 General CLE Credit r $67

10 Uniform Commercial Code Toolkit, Part 2: Equipment Leases

Thesecondinthethree-party“UCCToolkit”series,thisprogramwillprovideyouaguidetodraftingeffectiveequipmentleases.Amongothertopics,theprogramwillcovertheapplicationofUCC2Atoequipmentleases,draftingtoensureyourleaseisnotre-characterizedasa“financing,”recentchangestotheunderlyinglawofequipmentleasesandpracticalguidanceonstructur-inganddraftingcompliantleases.1.0 General CLE Credit r $67

11 Uniform Commercial Code Toolkit, Part 3: Secured Transactions

Thethirdinthethree-party“UCCToolkit”series,thisprogramwillprovideyouwithapracticalguidetodraftingsecurityandfinanceagreements.Amongothertopics,theprogramwillcoverspecialissuesforsecuredtransactionsina tightcreditenvironment,anti-assignmentprovisions regardingcollateral,foreclosuresissues,andmuchmore.1.0 General CLE Credit r $67


CLE AT-A-GLANCE - 6

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INSTITUTE:Recent Developments in Intellectual Property Law

Thursday, December 2, 2010 • State Bar Center, Albuquerque4.5 General, 1.0 Ethics, & 1.0 Professionalism CLE Credits

r Standard Fee $209 r Intellectual Property Section Member, Government, Legal Services Attorney, Paralegal $179

Co-Sponsor: Intellectual Property Section8:30 a.m. Registration9:00 a.m. International Patent Prosecution Strategies Colin Cahoon, Esq., Carstens & Cahoon LLP, Dallas •Mechanismsforforeignprosecution •Typicalprosecutionpathway •Firstfilingandforeignfilinglicenseconsiderations •CostandSpeedConsiderations •PCTOption •FactorsforConsideringNationalStageFilings •Timelineneededtoachieveobjectives •Prosecutionfactoranddifficulties •Enforceability •Postallowanceconsiderations •Oppositions,Annuities •Userequirements,Logisticalpointers •DocketingandAnnuityProgramsandServices9:30 a.m. Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH), a New Road for US

Practitioners Colin Cahoon, Esq. •ThepurposeandfunctionofPPH •WhatisPPH •Goals •PPHSignatories •NewPTCRelatedAgreements •Non-PCTPPHRequirements PPH Requirements •ParisConventionapplication •Nationalstageapplication •Bypassapplication •PCT-PPHRequirements •PCT-PPHPilotProgramSummary •PCT-PPHRelationshipExamples •HowdoesthePPHChangeInternationalProsecution? •NewOptionsforNon-USandPCTApplicants Future of PPH PCT PPH agreements10:30a.m. Break10:45 a.m. Professionalism issues in the 21st Century Small Law Firm

(withanemphasisontheintellectualpropertyfirm)(1.0P) Diane Albert, Esq., Law Office of Diane Albert

11:45a.m. Lunch(providedattheStateBarCenter)12:45p.m. Recent Developments in Copyright Richard Mertz, Esq., Office of University Counsel, UNM •Overviewofcopyright,prerequisitesforcopyright

protection;exclusiverightsandlimitations. •Infringementactions.Contributoryandvicarious

infringement,softwareinfringement,filesharing. •Exceptionstotheexclusiverightsofcopyrightholders,

especiallyfairuse.Developmentsandtrendsinfairuse.Isfairuseindecline?RecentcasesincludingtransformativeuseandInternetuse.

•Ownership.Worksmadeforhire,jointworks,collectiveworks.

•Transferofrights.Assignment,exclusiveandnon-exclusivelicenses.

1:45p.m. The Case of In re Bilski Anthony Claiborne, Esq., Microsoft Corp ImplicationsoftheSupremeCourt’slong-awaitedruling:

ProsecutingorChallengingPatentClaims.2:30p.m. Break2:45p.m. Web 2.0: Ethics Issues for New Mexico Lawyers Anthony Claiborne 3:45p.m. Current Trends in Trade Secrets Charles A. Armgardt, Esq., Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA Plaintiff’sprima faciecaseformisappropriation •MisappropriationandTradeSecret-definitions •SecrecyandCompetitiveAdvantage •DisclosureandConfidentialRelationships •Plaintiff’sLostProfitsandExemplaryandCompensatory

Damages •Defendant’sbenefit •TimePeriodforDamages •InjunctiveRelief4:15p.m. Barbie/Bratz Case Study Jeffrey H. Albright, Esq., Lewis and Roca LLP CaseStudyonBrandingIssues.5:00p.m. AdjournandReception(StateBarCenterLobby)

2010 REAL PROPERTY INSTITUTEFriday, December 3, 2010 • State Bar Center, Albuquerque

6.5 General CLE Creditsr Standard Fee $219 r Real Property, Estate, and Trust Section Member, Government, Legal Services Attorney, Paralegal $189

Co-Sponsor: Real Property, Estate, and Trust Section

8:00 a.m. Registration8:25 a.m. Introductory Remarks and Course Overview Linda Isaida Leyba, Leyba Law Firm, P.C.8:30 a.m. Mortgages and Deeds of Trust Orlando Lucero, Esq., Stewart Title of Albuquerque LLC9:30 a.m. Real Estate Contracts Orlando Lucero, Esq.10:30a.m. Break10:45 a.m. Update on Real Property Law Robert L. Lucero, Esq., Rodey Dickason Sloan Akin & Robb PA11:45p.m. Lunch(providedattheStateBarCenter)

12:45p.m. Commercial Real Estate Loan Sales Mark Styles, Hurley Toevs Styles Hamblin & Panter PA1:15p.m. ECR’s, CCR’s, and OEA’s- What Are They? Lawrence Wells, Campbell & Wells PA2:15p.m. Break2:30p.m. Title Matters Edward J. Roibal, Roibal Law Firm3:30p.m. LeasingIssues Bruce Castle, Attorney at Law Meg Meister, Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA4:30p.m. Adjourn



CLE AT-A-GLANCE - 7

TRIALS OF THE CENTURY

THE NEW NEGOTIATION SKILLS & TACTICS:Necessary Upgrades for the Litigator’s Toolbox

Thursday, December 15, 2010 • State Bar Center, Albuquerque5.0 General & 1.0 Ethics CLE Credits

r Standard Fee $229 r Trial Practice Section Member, Government, Legal Services Attorney, Paralegal $199

Co-Sponsor: Trial Practice SectionPresenter: Todd Winegar, Salt Lake City

“On a scale of 1 to 10, Todd Winegar is a 20…Step by Step and World Class!” –past CLE participant

Thursday, December 16, 2010 State Bar Center, Albuquerque4.5 General and 1.0 Ethics CLE Credits

r Standard Fee $189 r Government, Legal Services Attorney, Paralegal $159

Presenters: Brian Shoemaker, Esq., Shoemaker Law Firm Gretchen M. Walther, Esq., Walther Law Firm

8:30 a.m. Registration9:00 a.m. Trials of the Century – Why Are They Famous, What Can

We Learn From Them? (1995) ObserveTheCross-Examination:OJSimpsonTrial(1995) •Generallyacceptedprinciplesofcross-examination •Adjustingandbreakingtheprinciplesofeffective

advocacytofitthecircumstances •Techniquesthatcanmakeacross-examinationgreat SeeTheCross-ExaminationofEllenAaronsonby

MarciaClark •Howwinningthebattlecanlosethewar WatchTheCarefullyStructuredCross-Examinationof

CriminalistDennisFung •SurprisingThewitness–Victoryisinthedocuments10:15a.m. Break10:30 a.m. Trials of the Century(continued) John T. Scopes’ Trial for Teaching Evolution in Public School •Listentothecross-examinationofWilliamJenningsBryan

byClarenceDarrow •Seethegreatguidelinesforcrossfollowed11:30 a.m. Lindbergh Kidnapping Trial(1935)(1.0E) •TheEthicsofDealingwithDifficultWitnessesand

Counsel •TheEthicsofRamboLitigationtactics12:30p.m. Lunch(providedattheStateBarCenter)

1:30p.m. The Nuremberg Trials (1945-1946): Cross-Examination of the Difficult Witness

ViewReichMarshallHermanGoring’scross-examinationbyU.S.SupremeCourtJustice

•Methodsofcontrollingthewitness •Appealingtothecourtwhenviolationsofcontroloccur2:40p.m. Leopold and Loeb Trial (1924): Closing Argument

Techniques ListentoDarrowargumentsandlearnto“turnan

argument” •Takethesamefacts,butarguetheoppositeconclusion •Attributethesamemotivestotheopposingparty2:55p.m. Break3:10p.m. The People v. Clarence Darrow (1911): L.A. Times

Bombing Trial WatchDarrow’sclosingargumentinhisownbriberytrial •Darrow’sfavoriteargumentsusedinvirtuallyeverytrial •Puttingyourclientinthewhitehat •Framingtheissues •Flatterywillgetyoueverywhere3:50p.m. The Clinton Impeachment Favoriteargumentswitha21stcenturytwist–Great

argumentshavenotchanged4:25p.m. WhatWasTheTrialoftheCentury?4:30p.m. Adjourn

8:30 a.m. Registration9:00 a.m. Introduction to the New Negotiations Skills & Tactics –

The Basics DetailedexplanationofTheNewNegotiationframework

andstrategies,basedonsystemcreatedbyHarvard’sProjectonNegotiation,andpracticedbypolitical,corporate,andlegalnegotiatorsandprofessionalsaroundtheworld.

10:15a.m. Break10:30 a.m. Examples, Applications and Live Role- plays of the

Basic Skills and Tactics Seehowtheprinciplesworkinmultipleareasofthelaw

andseehowitcanmakeanimmediatedifferenceinyourpractice.

Noon Lunch(providedattheStateBarCenter)

1:00p.m. Recent Developments and Nuance to the New Negotiation Skills & Tactics

Loadsofadditionalinsights,nuanceandskillstorefineyournegotiations–includinghowtohandlethedifficultconversations,waystomaximizepositive elementstotheprocess,andhowtoeffectivelycreateagreementsoutof“no”.

2:45p.m. Break3:00p.m. Ethical Considerations in the Vigorous, Competitive

World of Negotiation Exploringcommon,real-worldexamplesofpotential

ethicalsnagswhenapplyingtheNewNegotiationSkills&Tactics.

4:00p.m. Adjourn

8 - CLE AT-A-GLANCE

For more information about our programs visit www.nmbarcle.orgCLE REGISTRATION FORM

TWO WAYS TO REGISTER:INTERNET: www.nmbarcle.org FAX:(505)797-6071,24houraccess

Please Note: For all WEBCASTS and TELESEMINARS, you must register online at www.nmbarcle.org

Name_______________________________________________________________________NMBar#_______________________Street______________________________________________________________________________________________________City/State/Zip _______________________________________________________________________________________________Phone _______________________________________________ Fax __________________________________________________E-mail______________________________________________________________________________________________________Program Title _______________________________________________________________ Program Date __________________Program Location _____________________________________________________________ Program Cost ________________r VISA r MC r AmericanExpress r DiscoverCredit Card # _______________________________________________________________________________________________Exp.Date__________________________________BillingZipCode_________________________CVV#____________________Authorized Signature ________________________________________________________________________________________

REGISTER EARLY! Advanceregistrationisrecommendedasitguaranteesadmittanceandcoursematerials.Ifspaceandmaterialsareavailable,paidregistrationswillbeac-ceptedatthedoor.

PAYING BY CHECK/PURCHASE ORDER: IfyouwillbepayingbycheckorgovernmentissuedPurchaseOrder,pleasecompletethisregistrationformandpresentitattheregistrationdeskwithyourcheck/purchaseorderonthedayoftheseminar.

CANCELLATIONS & REFUNDS: Ifyoufindthatyoumustcancelyourregistration,sendawrittennoticeofcancellationviafaxby5p.m.,oneweekpriortotheprogramofinterest.Arefund,lessa$50processingchargewillbeissued.RegistrantswhofailtonotifyCLEbythedateandtimeindicatedwillreceiveasetofcoursematerialsviamailfollowingtheprogram.

MCLE CREDIT INFORMATION: CourseshavebeenapprovedbytheNewMexicoMCLEBoard.CLEofSBNMwillprovideattorneyswithnecessaryformstofileforMCLEcreditinotherstates.AseparateMCLEfilingfeemayberequired.

ATTENTION PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: Ourmeetingsareheldatfacilitieswhicharefullyaccessibletopersonswithmobilitydisabilities. Ifyouplantoattendourprogramandwillneedanauxiliaryaidorservice,pleasecontacttheCLEofSBNMofficeoneweekpriortotheprogram.

PROGRAM CANCELLATION: Pre-registrationisrecommended.Programwillbecancelledoneweekpriortoscheduleddateifattendanceisinsufficient.Pre-registrantswillbenotifiedbyphoneandfullrefundsgiven.

TAPE RECORDING OF PROGRAMS IS NOT PERMITTED.

CLE AUDIT POLICY:MembersoftheStateBarofNewMexico(toincludeattorneysandparalegals)andotherlegalstaff(legalstaffbeingdefinedaslegalassistantsandstaffofmembersoftheStateBarofNewMexico)mayauditStateBarCLEcoursesatacostof$10,spacepermitting.Coursematerials,breaksand/orlunch,ifapplicable,maybepurchasedatanadditionalcostof$29.AuditorsshouldcontacttheCLEofficeinadvanceandnotifystaffoftheirintenttoaudit.“Walk-in”auditorswillalsobepermittedonaspaceavailablebasis.AuditorswillnotreceiveCLEcreditsfortheauditfee.IfanauditorchoosestoreceiveCLEcreditforattendingthecourse,therequestandpaymentmustbemadetoCLEstaffonthedayoftheprogram.AttendeeswhorequestCLEcreditpriortotheprogramwillnotbeallowedtochangetoaudit.Noexceptionswillapply.Thispolicyappliestoliveseminarsonlyandexcludesspecialevents.

SCHOLARSHIPS: Pleasenote,scholarshipsareavailableonan‘asneeded’basisforupto10%ofanygivenseminar.Theamountofthescholarshipisequivalenttoa50%reductionofthestandardfeeforeachseminar.Toqualify,recipientsarerequiredtosignafinancialassistanceformavailablefromtheCLEdepartment.Forfurtherinformation,pleasecall(505)797-6020. NOTE: Programs subject to change without notice.

MAKING YOUR CASE WITH A BETTER MEMORYThursday, December 16, 2010 • State Bar Center, Albuquerque

6.0 General CLE Creditsr Standard Fee $199 r Government, Legal Services Attorney, Paralegal $169

Presenter: Paul Mellor, Success Links8:30 a.m. Registration9:00 a.m Deposition Demonstration Introduction with demonstration displays the lightning

speedofatrainedmemory.Youwillbeshowntheeaseofrememberinginformationfromadeposition.Emphasisisplacedonwhyweforgetandhowwecanremember.

10:15a.m. Break10:30 a.m. How to Speak to Jurors without Notes Discoversecretsonhowtopresentacasewithoutnotes.

Learn step-by-step techniques on how to draft yourremarks, prepare your mind and deliver a powerfulpresentation.Tokeepthe jury inthepalmofyourhand,youwillhavetoletgoofyournotes.

12:15p.m. Lunch(providedattheStateBarCenter)

1:00p.m. Cross-Examination with Confidence Using the two-step formula in recall, youwill acquire the

skill in remembering to ask key questions during cross-examination. Use of examples and illustrations helpreinforcetheproficiencywhendealingwiththoseonthewitness stand.

2:15p.m. Break2:30p.m. Remember Names and Faces of Jurors in Trial, Clients

in Presentations and in Other Professional Settings Youwill learn theFACIAL formula toquickly remembera

name. Attention is placed on concentration techniquesand focusing on recalling the name correctly. Use ofpicturesandexamplescreateaprovensystemincorrectlymatchinganametoaface.Youwilllearnhowtorememberfirstnames,lastnamesandgroupsofpeople.

4:15p.m. Adjourn






legal education

G = General E = Ethics

P = Professionalism VR = Video Replay Programs have various sponsors; contact appropriate sponsor for more information.

11 Lawyer Substance Abuse Addictions: Causes and Results

Teleconference TRT, Inc. 1.0 E, 1.0 P 1-800-672-6253 www.trtcle.com

12–13 Basics of Fiduciary Income Tax, Parts 1 and 2

Teleseminar Center for Legal Education of

NMSBF 2.0 G (505) 797-6020 www.nmbarcle.org

13 Investigating the Discrimination Claim

State Bar Center Paralegal Division 1.0 G (505) 247-0411 or (505) 222-9356

13 Representing Claimants in Social Security Disability Appeals

State Bar Center Center for Legal Education of


13 Workers’ Compensation to Social Security

Morning Session: Assisting Clients to Avoid the Holes in the Social Safety Net (2.7 G)

Afternoon Session: Representing Claimants in Social Security Disability Appeals (3.4 G)


NMSBF (505) 797-6020 www.nmbarcle.org

octoBer

15–16 2010 Family Law Institute State Bar Center Center for Legal Education of

NMSBF 10.0 G, 1.0 E, 1.0 P (505) 797-6020 www.nmbarcle.org

19 2010 Americans With Disabilities Act Update



19 25th Annual Bankruptcy Year in Review (2010)

VR Center for Legal Education of

NMSBF 6.0 G, 1.0 P (505) 797-6020 www.nmbarcle.org

19 ABCs of Foreclosure Law (2010) VR Center for Legal Education of


19 Multitasking Gone Mad: Learning to Cope in a Wired, Demanding World (2010)


NMSBF 4.2 G, 1.2 E (505) 797-6020 www.nmbarcle.org

21 Art of Self-Awareness Taos Grove Burnett Vallecitos Mountain Ranch 3.0 E, 2.0 P (575) 751-9613

21 Best Practices and Ethics in Adult Guardianship Law

Teleconference TRT, Inc. 1.0 G 1.0 E 1-800-672-6253 www.trtcle.com

21 Real Estate Finance: Sources of Capital



22 New Mexico Administrative Law Institute



26 Animal Law: Legislation, Litigation, Ethics, and Professionalism (2010)



26 DigitalWorkflow:Developingthe Paperless Habit (Debbie Foster)

(2010 Annual Meeting) VR Center for Legal Education of


26 Innocent Spouse Defense Teleseminar Center for Legal Education of


http://www.trtcle.com
















legal education www.nmbar.org

26 Skeptically Determining the Limits of Expert Testimony and Evidence (2010)



26 The Travelling Lawyer (Jim Calloway) (2010 Annual Meeting)



26 Winning Demonstrative Exhibits (David Gross)

(2010 Annual Meeting) VR Center for Legal Education of


28 Dangers of Using “Units” in LLC Planning



29 DWI Defense for Intermediate and Advance Practitioners

UNM Continuing Education Albuquerque New Mexico Criminal Defense

Lawyers Association 6.25 G (505) 992-0050 www.nmcdla.org

29 When Prosecutors Test the Outer Limits


30 Lawyer Substance Abuse Addictions: Causes and Results


2 2010 Professionalism and Ethics: Responding to Crisis Through Limited Representation


NMSBF 1.0 E, 1.0 P (505) 797-6020 www.nmbarcle.org

2 7th Annual Elder Law Seminar (2010)



2 Creditors Rights, Collections, and Bankruptcy (2010)



novemBer

2 The Inbox Ninja VR Center for Legal Education of


2–3 MaximizingTaxBenefitsinRealEstate, Parts 1 and 2



2 Success as a Lawyer (David Gross) VR Center for Legal Education of


4 The Tribal Law and Order Act: Changes in the Landscape of Indian Criminal Law


NMSBF 2.2 G, 1.0 P (505) 797-6020 www.nmbarcle.org

5 2010 Business Law Institute State Bar Center Center for Legal Education of


9 2010 Probate Institute VR Center for Legal Education of




















Kathleen Jo Gibson, Chief Clerk New Mexico Supreme Court PO Box 848 • Santa Fe, NM 87504-0848 • (505) 827-4860

effeCTive oCTober 11, 2010

Writs of certiorari

as updated By the clerk of the neW mexico supreme court

petitions for Writ of certiorari filed and pending: Date Petition FiledNO. 32,632 State v.

Dominguez-Meraz (COA 30,382) 10/1/10NO. 32,631 State v.Moreno (COA 30,295) 9/30/10NO. 32,630 State v. Birkley (COA 30,297) 9/30/10NO. 32,629 State v. Apodaca (COA 29,408) 9/30/10NO. 32,628 State v. Crocket (COA 30,422) 9/29/10NO. 32,627 State v. Williams (COA 29,093) 9/29/10NO. 32,626 State v. Bobby V. (COA 30,397) 9/29/10NO. 32,623 Bradburn v. Hatch (12-501) 9/27/10NO. 32,622 State v. Jones (COA 30,232) 9/27/10NO. 32,620 State v. Lopez (COA 30,262) 9/24/10NO. 32,619 State v. Devins (COA 30,393) 9/24/10NO. 32,618 State v. Garcia (COA 28,395) 9/24/10NO. 32,617 NM Human Rights Comm.

v. Accurate Machine (COA 29,003) 9/24/10NO. 32,613 AMS Staff Leasing v. Walker (COA 30,446) 9/20/10 Responsefiled9/30/10NO. 32,612 Corum v.

Roswell Senior Living (COA 28,314) 9/20/10NO. 32,609 Lucero v.

City of Albuquerque (COA 29,066) 9/17/10NO. 32,606 State v. Clymo (COA 30,005) 9/15/10NO. 32,605 State v. Franco (COA 30,028) 9/15/10NO. 32,604 Cox v.

NM Dept of Public Safety (COA 28,658) 9/15/10 Responsefiled9/23/10NO. 32,603 Holguin v. Fulco Oil (COA 29,149) 9/15/10NO. 32,602 State v. Marez (COA 30,233) 9/14/10NO. 32,600 State v. Williams (COA 30,472) 9/14/10NO. 32,599 State v. Saiz (COA 30,385) 9/14/10NO. 32,598 State v. Judd (COA 30,321) 9/14/10NO. 32,601 Rivera v. Rivera (COA 29,511) 9/13/10NO. 32,594 Smith v. Durden (COA 28,896) 9/13/10 Responsefiled9/22/10NO. 32,593 National Union v.

UNM Board of Regents (COA 28,960) 9/9/10 Responsefiled9/27/10NO. 32,587 State v. Rodriguez (COA 30,451) 9/9/10NO. 32,589 State v. Ordunez (COA 28,297) 9/8/10NO. 32,588 State v. Gutierrez (COA 30,180) 9/8/10NO. 32,585 Fliss v. Blakes Lotaburger (COA 29,166) 9/7/10NO. 32,534 Bustos v.

Hyundai Motor Company (COA 28,240) 9/3/10 Responsefiled9/20/10NO. 32,584 State v. Oryem (COA 30,306) 9/2/10NO. 32,582 State v. Reyes (COA 30,151) 9/1/10NO. 32,569 Duran v. Jaramillo (12-501) 8/27/10 Responsefiled9/28/10NO. 32,347 Shaffar v. Williams (12-501) 8/27/10 Response due 10/29/10 by extn

NO. 32,567 Ghaffari v. Benard (COA 29,917) 8/26/10 Response due 10/8/10NO. 32,562 State v. Grier (COA 27,947) 8/23/10NO. 32,538 Peterson v. Neubauer (COA 30,235) 8/17/10 Responsefiled10/1/10NO. 32,553 State v. Botello (COA 26,997) 8/16/10 Responsefiled9/24/10NO. 32,510 State v. Swick (COA 28,316) 7/22/10 Supp’lbrieffiled9/30/10

certiorari granted But not yet suBmitted to the court:

(Parties preparing briefs) Date Writ IssuedNO. 32,012 State v. Trujillo (COA 28,412) 11/18/09NO. 32,234 State v. Trujillo (COA 29,870) 3/10/10NO. 32,243 Farmers Insurance Co

of Arizona v. Chen (COA 28,859) 4/1/10NO. 32,175 Kittell v. Lovett (COA 29,693) 4/1/10NO. 32,263 State v. Williams (COA 28,034) 4/1/10NO. 32,291 State v. Torres (COA 29,603) 4/23/10NO. 32,320 State v. Vasquez (COA 29,800) 5/5/10NO. 32,341 Herzog v. Griego (COA 20,224) 5/5/10NO. 32,342 Bonney v. Herzog (COA 20,227) 5/5/10NO. 32,302 Lion’s Gate Water v.

NM State Engineer (COA 28,630) 6/2/10 (On rehearing)NO. 32,340 Rivera v.

American General (COA 28,691) 6/2/10NO. 32,344 Provencio v. Wenrich (COA 28,882) 6/2/10NO. 32,360 State v. Figueroa (COA 28,798) 6/2/10NO. 32,374 State v. Nevarez (COA 28,599) 6/2/10NO. 32,376 Ehrenreich v. Malzahn (COA 29,835) 6/2/10NO. 32,379 State v. Luchetti (COA 28,447) 6/2/10NO. 32,388 State v. Harper (COA 27,830) 6/2/10NO. 32,402 State v. Harper (COA 27,830) 6/24/10NO. 32,311 Rodriguez v.

Permian Drilling Corp. (COA 29,435) 6/24/10NO. 32,425 State ex rel. CYFD v.

Michael C (COA 29,394) 7/16/10NO. 32,444 State v. Stanley (COA 28,288) 7/16/10NO. 32,456 State ex rel. CYFD v.

Sarah B. (COA 29,169/29,203) 7/16/10NO. 32,430 State v. Muqqddin (COA 28,474) 8/2/10NO. 32,489 City of Rio Rancho v.

Cloudview Estates (COA 29,510) 8/2/10NO. 32,488 High Mesa General

Partnership v. Patterson (COA 28,802) 8/2/10NO. 32,436 Estate of Jaramillo v.

Meteor Monument (COA 28,799) 8/9/10NO. 32,486 City of Rio Rancho v.

Amrep (COA 28,709) 8/10/10NO. 32,447 Mendoza v.

Tamaya Enterprises (COA 28,809) 8/10/10NO. 32,483 State v. Jackson (COA 28,657) 8/19/10


Writs of certiorari http://nmsupremecourt.nmcourts.gov.

NO. 32,505 Charley v. Franklin Corporation (COA 28,876) 8/30/10

NO. 32,524 Republican Party v. Tax & Revenue Dept. (COA 28,292) 8/30/10

NO. 32,542 Quintero v. Dept. of Transportation (COA 28,875) 8/31/10

NO. 32,545 State ex rel. CYFD v. Octavio F. (COA 29,469) 9/2/10

NO. 32,532 Gutierrez v. Hatch (12-501) 9/15/10NO. 32,571 State v. Cunningham (COA 27,884) 9/15/10NO. 32,548 State v. Robles (COA 30,118) 9/27/10NO. 32,574 Dunworth v. Jesionowski (COA 29,080) 9/27/10NO. 32,577 May v. DCP

Midstream LP (COA 29,331/29,490) 9/27/10

certiorari granted and suBmitted to the court:

(Submission = date of oral argument or briefs-only submission)Submission Date

NO. 31,602 Allstate Ins. Co. v. Guest (COA 27,253) 12/14/09NO. 31,603 Guest v. Allstate Ins. Co. (COA 27,253) 12/14/09NO. 31,100 Allen v. LeMaster (12-501) 2/15/10NO. 31,723 State v. Mendez (COA 28,261) 2/16/10NO. 31,724 Albuquerque Commons v. City of Albuquerque (COA 24,026/24,027/24,042/24,425) 2/22/10NO. 31,738 State v. Marlene C. (COA 28,352) 3/22/10NO. 31,656 State v. Rivera (COA 25,798) 4/13/10NO. 31,015 State v. Demongey (COA 26,453) 4/15/10NO. 32,001 Oldham v. Oldham (COA 28,493) 5/10/10NO. 31,567 State v. Guthrie (COA 27,022) 5/11/10NO. 32,065 Romero v. Progressive

Northwestern Ins Co. (COA 28,720) 5/11/10 (On rehearing)NO. 31,909 State v. Rudy B. (COA 27,589) 5/12/10

NO. 32,099 Wachocki v. Bernalillo Co. Sheriff’s Dept. (COA 27,761) 7/19/10

NO. 32,131 Wachocki v. Bernalillo Co. Sheriff’s Dept. (COA 27,761) 7/19/10

NO. 32,063 Jordan v. Allstate Insurance Co. (COA 28,638) 7/29/10

(On rehearing) NO. 32,203 Lucero v. Trujillo (COA 29,859) 7/29/10NO. 32,139 San Juan Ag. Water Users

Assn. v. KNME-TV (COA 28,473) 8/9/10NO. 31,980 Northwest Villages LLC v.

Martinez (COA 29,743) 8/25/10NO. 32,149 State v. Sandoval (COA 28,437) 8/30/10NO. 31,891 State v. Gonzales (COA 29,297) 9/14/10NO. 32,126 State v. Myers (COA 26,837) 9/14/10NO. 32,044 State v. Episcopo (COA 29,328) 9/21/09NO. 32,202 Summers v.

Ardent Health Services (COA 28.605) 10/12/10 (On rehearing)NO. 32,069 State v. Martinez (COA 28,665) 10/13/10NO. 32,137 State v. Skippings (COA 28,324) 10/13/10NO. 32,130 State v. Cruz (COA 27,292) 10/14/10NO. 32,324 Allen v. Papatheofanis (COA 28,079) 10/14/10NO. 31,791 State v. Atcitty (COA 27,189/27,940/27,333) 10/25/09NO. 32,092 State v. Trujillo (COA 27,291) 10/27/10NO. 32,094 State v. Flores (COA 27,647) 10/27/10NO. 32,339 McPeek v. Hubbard (COA 27,424) 11/15/10NO. 32,170 State v. Ketelson (COA 29,876) 11/16/10

petition for Writ of certiorari denied:

NO. 32,572 State v. Lucero (COA 29,268) 9/27/10

http://nmsupremecourt.nmcourts.gov


Published OPiniOns Date Opinion Filed

NO. 28674 12th Jud Dist Otero CR-02-104, STATE v D AKERS (reverse and remand) 9/27/2010

NO. 29489 5th Jud Dist Chaves JR-08-177, STATE v GAGE R (reverse and remand) 9/27/2010

NO.28693 9thJudDistCurryCR-07-671,STATEvRGONZALES(affirm) 9/28/2010

NO.29317 2ndJudDistBernalilloJQ-06-17,STATEvZRIVERA(affirm) 9/30/2010

unPublished OPiniOns

NO.29576 12thJudDistLincolnCR-08-257,STATEvGLORETTO(affirm) 9/27/2010

NO.28172 3rdJudDistDonaAnaCV-07-266,SDIAZvBDOFEDUCATION(affirm) 9/28/2010

NO. 29254 2nd Jud Dist Bernalillo JQ-06-3, CYFD v FRANKIE P (reverse) 9/28/2010

NO.30381 2ndJudDistBernalilloLR-08-33,STATEvSDUNCAN(affirm) 9/28/2010

NO. 30436 13th Jud Dist Sandoval CV-06-872, ITALIGREE v J CHAPPELLEE (dismiss) 9/28/2010

NO. 30533 9th Jud Dist Curry CR-08-72 1, STATE v L GRIGGS (reverse) 9/28/2010

NO.28026 2ndJudDistBernalilloCR-05-2243,STATEvJDOMINGUEZ(affirminpart,reverseinpartandremand) 9/29/2010 NO.29588 13thJudDistValenciaJQ-08-7,CYFDvVIOLAA(affirm) 9/30/2010

NO.29642 13thJudDistValenciaJQ-08-07,CYFDvCHRISTOPHERH(affirm) 9/30/2010

NO. 29896 WCA-09-54246, B CRIBBS v COASTAL CHEMICAL (reverse and remand) 9/30/2010

NO.30258 3rdJudDistDonaAnaCR-09-569,STATEvMGILLIGAN(affirm) 9/30/2010

NO.30419 11thJudDistSanJuanCR-09-872,STATEvQWRIGHT(affirm) 9/30/2010

NO.30431 2ndJudDistBernalilloLR-08-42,STATEvBRODRIGUEZ(affirm) 9/30/2010

Gina M. Maestas, Chief Clerk New Mexico Court of Appeals PO Box 2008 • Santa Fe, NM 87504-2008 • (505) 827-4925

effeCTive oCTober 1, 2010

opinions

as updated By the clerk of the neW mexico court of appeals

Slip Opinions for Published Opinions may be read on the Court’s website:http://coa.nmcourts.gov/documents/index.htm

http://coa.nmcourts.gov/documents/index.htm


Clerk’s CertifiCate DateD september 20, 2010

clerk’s certificatesfrom the neW mexico supreme court

Clerk’s CertifiCate Of admissiOn

Daniel P. AbeytaDNA-People’s Legal Services709 North Butler AvenueFarmington, NM 87401-6855505-325-8886505-327-9486 (fax)

Rafael Amador5404 5th Street, NW, Apt. 3Albuquerque, NM 87107-5246

Jennifer M. AndersonLewis and Roca LLPPO Box 1027201 3rd Street, NW, Suite 1950 (87102-4388)Albuquerque, NM 87103-1027505-764-5435505-764-5480 (fax)

Nathan S. AndersonBarber & Borg LLCPO Box 307453816 Carlisle Boulevard, NE, Suite C (87107)Albuquerque, NM 87190-0745505-884-0004505-884-0077 (fax)

Jennifer L. AttrepLong, Pound & Komer PAPO Box 50982200 Brothers Road (87505-6903)Santa Fe, NM 87502-5098505-982-8405505-982-8513 (fax)

Aaron Christopher Baca11000 Woodland Avenue, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87112-1683

Samantha R. BarncastleLaw Office of Steven L. Hernandez PCPO Box 131082100 North Main Street, Suite A (88001)Las Cruces, NM 88013-3108575-526-2101575-526-2506 (fax)

Patrick D. BarrySommer, Udall, Hardwick, Ahern & Hyatt, LLPPO Box 1984200 West Marcy Street, Suite 129 (87501-2036)Santa Fe, NM 87504-1984505-982-4676505-988-7029 (fax)

Brock Morgan Benjamin4100 Okeefe DriveEl Paso, TX 79902-1316

Thomas BlogOffice of the District Attorney520 Lomas Boulevard, NWAlbuquerque, NM 87102-2118505-841-7100505-841-7015 (fax)

Randy Patrick Boyer5 West Glebe Road, Apt. C-5Alexandria, VA 22305-2614

Matthew P. Brown3915 Barbara Loop, SERio Rancho, NM 87124-1054

Kathleen Rosemary Bryan818 6th Street, NWAlbuquerque, NM 87102-2041

Elizabeth Michele Camp1 University of NMMSC09 53001117 Stanford Drive, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87131-0001

Christopher K.P. Cardenas215 South Campo StreetLas Cruces, NM 88001-3510

Julia Diane CatronLawit & Kitson2305 Renard Place, SE, Suite 210Albuquerque, NM 87106-4313505-243-0733505-244-1843 (fax)

Sri D. ChalasaniPO Box 1988Carlsbad, NM 88221-1988

Marilyn Julie Chimes712 Rio Ruidoso Road, NERio Rancho, NM 87144-6488

Tania M. Chozet252 Columbia AvenueEl Paso, TX 79907-5935

Teresa Cannistraro ChristensonRodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb PAPO Box 1888201 3rd Street, NW, Suite 2200 (87102-3380)Albuquerque, NM 87103-1888505-765-5900505-768-7395 (fax)

Jonathan Conrad Clark1302 TX AvenueLubbock, TX 79401-4034

David Kale Clements2251 La Paloma DriveLas Cruces, NM 88011-5080

Elizabeth C. CliffordPO Box 5031Santa Fe, NM 87502-5031

Brian M. Close7200 Montgomery Blvd., NE, Suite B9PMB 373Albuquerque, NM 87109-1596

Jill Marie CollinsPO Box 95543Albuquerque, NM 87199-5543

John L. Collins, Jr.Law Office of Daniel R. Lindsey920 Mitchell StreetClovis, NM 88101-5816575-763-8900575-766-8517 (fax)

Amanda N. ConnorPeifer, Hanson & Mullins PAPO Box 2524520 First Plaza Center, NW, Suite 725 (87102-5805)Albuquerque, NM 87125-5245505-247-4800505-243-6458 (fax)

Kimberly M. Chavez Cook949 Agua Fria Street, Apt. ASanta Fe, NM 87501-1555

Tyler M. CuffRodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb PAPO Box 1888201 3rd Street, NW, Suite 2200 (87102-3380)Albuquerque, NM 87103-1888505-765-5900505-768-7395 (fax)

Sean M. CunniffNM Supreme CourtPO Box 848237 Don Gaspar Avenue (87501)Santa Fe, NM 87504-0848505-827-4880505-827-4837 (fax)

Brett Danoff604 Chama Street, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87108-2029

Ryan Danoff604 Chama Street, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87108-2029

Ann M. Delpha9015 Opportunity Drive, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87109-5150

Jeffrey B. Driggers1675 Candlelight DriveLas Cruces, NM 88011-4901

Rebecca C. Duffin3741 Piedras Negras DriveLas Cruces, NM 88012-7664

Paige Anne Elizabeth DuhamelCastle, Meinhold & Stawiarski20 First Plaza Center, NW, Suite 602Albuquerque, NM 87102505-848-9500505-848-9516 (fax)

Roufeda S. EbrahimPO Box 5665Ventura, CA 93005-5665

Eraina Marie EdwardsNM Court of AppealsPO Box 253062211 Tucker Road, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87125-0306505-767-6126505-841-4614 (fax)


clerk’s certificates http://nmsupremecourt.nmcourts.gov.

Christopher T. ElmoreAllen, Shepherd, Lewis, Syra & Chapman PAPO Box 947504801 Lang Avenue, NE, Suite 200 (87109)Albuquerque, NM 87199-4750505-341-0110505-341-3434 (fax)

Hans P. EricksonMontgomery & Andrews PAPO Box 2307325 Paseo de Peralta (87501-1860)Santa Fe, NM 87504-2307505-982-3873505-982-4289 (fax)

Stephanie A. Erickson6801 Jefferson Street, NE, Ste. 400Albuquerque, NM 87109-4390

David Alexander FerranceNM Court of AppealsPO Box 253062211 Tucker Road, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87125-0306505-841-4650505-841-4614 (fax)

Aaron W. Fields6001 Moon Street, NE, #1978Albuquerque, NM 87111-1455

Kathryn T. FischerOffice of the Public Defender301 North Guadalupe Street, Suite 101Santa Fe, NM 87501505-476-0700505-476-0779 (fax)

Thomas B. FitzwaterOffice of the District Attorney520 Lomas Boulevard, NWAlbuquerque, NM 87102-2118505-841-7100505-841-7015 (fax)

Hannah Seiver Foster411 West End Avenue, #10DNew York, NY 10024-5722

Hunter Frederick2842 Hermitage DriveWinston-Salem, NC27103-4206

Elizabeth V. FriedensteinThe Turner Law Firm LLC500 Marquette Avenue, NW, Suite 1480Albuquerque, NM 87102-5333505-242-1300505-242-1441 (fax)

Derek V. Garcia37 Westlake Drive, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87112-4262

Martina M. Gauthier2220 Camino Rancho SiringoSanta Fe, NM 87505-5278

Alan Louis Genicoff2536 Poppy DriveLodi, CA 95242-4776

Nicholas K. Gilbert3608 Ladera Drive, NW, #C-304Albuquerque, NM 87120-1791

Erica R. GonzalesMiller Stratvert PAPO Box 25687500 Marquette Avenue, NW, Suite 1100 (87102-5326)Albuquerque, NM 87125-5687505-842-1950505-243-4408 (fax)

Jeff Grandjean2951 North Roadrunner ParkwayLas Cruces, NM 88011-0814

Michael H. Gritzbaugh54 Armin RoadTijeras, NM 87059-8113

Karen GrohmanU.S. District Court for the District of NM333 Lomas Boulevard, NW, Suite 610Albuquerque, NM 87102-2276505-348-2330505-348-2335 (fax)

Desiree D. Gurule1500 Walter Street, SEAlbuquerque, NM 87102-4658

Charles J. Gutierrez3306 Jamesway Drive, SWAlbuquerque, NM 87121-5224

Tiffany HammerDNA-People’s Legal ServicesPO Box 306Window Rock, AZ 86515-0306928-871-4151928-871-5036 (fax)

Nephi HardmanCarpenter Law PC500 Marquette Avenue, NW, Suite 1460Albuquerque, NM 87102-5320

Keri Lisa HatleyPO Box 126Aztec, NM 87410-0126

Kelsey McCowan Heilman720 Vassar Drive, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87106-2724

Stephen A. Hess90 South Cascade Avenue, Suite 1500Colorado Springs, CO80903-1639

Daniel M. HillModrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk PAPO Box 2168500 4th Street, NW, Suite 1000 (87102)Albuquerque, NM 87103-2168505-848-1800505-848-1889 (fax)

Rachel HilliardOffice of the District Attorney520 Lomas Boulevard, NWAlbuquerque, NM 87102-2118505-841-7100505-841-7015 (fax)

Brandon T. HollisOffice of the District Attorney205 South Main AvenuePortales, NM 88130-6216575-356-4434575-359-3083 (fax)

Kevin P. Holmes629 Jefferson Street, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87110-6201

Christy Lyn Elizabeth HubbardLewis and Roca, LLP40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900Phoenix, AZ 85004-4429602-262-5311602-262-5747 (fax)

William J. Hudson, Jr.309 Morgan RoadTaos, NM 87571-4417

J. Ryland Hutchins20 Eagle RoadTijeras, NM 87059-8012

Jessica Ann Janet7404 Vickrey Drive, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87109-3917

Francisco Juan JimenezOffice of the District Attorney520 Lomas Boulevard, NWAlbuquerque, NM 87102-2118505-841-7100505-841-7015 (fax)

Joshua Joe JimenezOffice of the District Attorney101 South Main Street, Suite 201Belen, NM 87002-3105505-861-0311505-861-7016 (fax)

Matthew A. Jones4101 Indian School Road, NE, Suite 300Albuquerque, NM 87110-3989

Charles H. Kalm2706 Haines Avenue, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87106-2639

Karl F. Kalm8604 Avenales Avenue, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87111-2312

Melissa A. KennellyPO Box 568Arroyo Hondo, NM 87513-0568

Mia L. KernNM Supreme CourtPO Box 848237 Don Gaspar Avenue (87501)Santa Fe, NM 87504-0848505-827-4883505-827-4837 (fax)

P. Cholla KhouryOffice of the Attorney GeneralPO Drawer 1508408 Galisteo Street (87501)Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508505-827-6000505-827-5826 (fax)




Kameron W. Kramer6308 Canterbury, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87111-6436

Thomas Ryan LaneGerding & O’LaughlinPO Box 1020304 North Behrend Avenue (87401-5843)Farmington, NM 87499-1020505-325-1804505-325-4675 (fax)

Nancy P. LavalleeAldridge, Aycock, Atkinson & Rutter LLPPO Box 3701200 Mitchell Street (88101-5616)Clovis, NM 88101-0370575-762-4700575-769-9790 (fax)

Barbara J. Leal701 East Bluff Street, #2304Fort Worth, TX 76102-2354

Brian L. LewisPO Box 771Window Rock, AZ 86515-0771

Tara Kirsten Lor1206 Girard Boulevard, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87106-1806

Ian Thomson LoydPO Box 699Arroyo Seco, NM 87514-0699

Steven J. LuceroCastle, Meinhold & Stawiarski20 First Plaza Center, NW, Suite 602 (87102-5803)Albuquerque, NM 87102505-848-9500505-848-9516 (fax)

Laurel Lueker-Eaton2723 Duranes Road, NWAlbuquerque, NM 87104-2618

Esperanza LujánOffice of the Public Defender505 Marquette Avenue, NW, Suite 120Albuquerque, NM 87102-3157505-841-5000505-841-5134 (fax)

Neysa Elena LujánNarvaez Law Firm PAPO Box 25967601 Rio Grande Boulevard, NW (87104)Albuquerque, NM 87125-0967505-248-0500505-247-1344 (fax)

Victoria Jane Lyons1212 Lobo Place, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87106-2611

Hajra Imtiaz MalikNM Court of AppealsPO Box 253062211 Tucker Road, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87125-0306505-841-4626505-841-4614 (fax)

Grant L. MarekOffice of the District Attorney520 Lomas Boulevard, NWAlbuquerque, NM 87102-2118505-841-7100505-841-7015 (fax)

Iris L. Marshall5916 Anaheim Avenue, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87113-1887

Aaron Weede MartinOffice of the District Attorney520 Lomas Boulevard, NWAlbuquerque, NM 87102-2118505-841-7100505-841-7015 (fax)

Carlos N. Martinez10700 Academy Road, NE, #1815Albuquerque, NM 87111-7336

Megan Y. MartinezPO Box 7040Albuquerque, NM 87194-7040

Thomas R. May60 Chestnut StreetBranford, CT 06405-3749

Kim M. McGinnis645 Griswold Street, Suite 3300Detroit, MI 48226-4215

Ryan H. McKelveyNM Supreme CourtPO Box 848237 Don Gaspar Avenue (87501)Santa Fe, NM 87504-0848505-827-4880505-827-4837 (fax)

Erin K. McSherryNM Supreme CourtPO Box 848237 Don Gaspar Avenue (87501)Santa Fe, NM 87504-0848505-827-4892505-827-4837 (fax)

James Walton Mitchell, III701 West Country Club RoadRoswell, NM 88201-5212

Scott S. Morgan207 South 4th StreetArtesia, NM 88210-2124

Jody Brent MullisPO Box 1988Carlsbad, NM 88221-1988

Marshall Neel4218 Skyview Crest Rd., NWAlbuquerque, NM 87114-5531

R.B. Nichols224 Cottonwood Canyon Rd.La Luz, NM 88337-9334

Brooke Nowak-Neely523 Eugene Court, SEAlbuquerque, NM 87123-5634

Nels Orell430 Truman Street, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87108-1321

Eric N. Ortiz202 Central Avenue, SE, Suite A-100Albuquerque, NM 87102-3459

Johnn S.L. OsbornOffice of the District Attorney520 Lomas Boulevard, NWAlbuquerque, NM 87102-2118505-841-7100505-841-7015 (fax)

Jessica T. Packineau808 Noval Place, NWAlbuquerque, NM 87114-1726

Matthew S.J. Padilla10101 Grosvenor Place, #1309North Bethesda, MD20852-4677

Mickie PattersonPool Law FirmPO Box 410400 Pile Street, Suite 100 (88101-7569)Clovis, NM 88102-0410575-762-8300575-762-3173 (fax)

Stephanie D. Pauly1500 Central Avenue, SW, #224Albuquerque, NM 87104-1172

Natalie Lynn Perry4777 Tramway Boulevard, NE, #606Albuquerque, NM 87111-2986

Misty Borland PhifferBorland & Borland Attorneys at Law PA213 North Main StreetMidland, TX 79701-5239800-648-5290432-620-0230432-684-5681 (fax)

B. Jason PoVey110 East Corbett Street, #26Hobbs, NM 88240-5251

Ian David Quinn22601 North 19th Avenue, Suite 230Phoenix, AZ 85027-1362

Sean Ramirez5340 East Timrod StreetTucson, AZ 85711-7429

Erin Irene ReedNM Court of AppealsPO Box 253062211 Tucker Road, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87125-0306505-841-4611505-841-4614 (fax)

Casey F. Rickard811 Marquette Avenue, NWAlbuquerque, NM 87102-1958




Jeremiah L. RitchieAllen, Shepherd, Lewis, Syra & Chapman PAPO Box 947504801 Lang Avenue, NE, Suite 200 (87109)Albuquerque, NM 87199-4750505-341-0110505-341-3434 (fax)

Katie Gwartney Roehlk1400 Vassar Drive, NE, Apt. BAlbuquerque, NM 87106-2607

Raymundo Eli Rojas1909 Septiembre DriveEl Paso, TX 79935-2819

Joseph M. RomeroGuebert Bruckner PCPO Box 938806801 Jefferson Street, NE, Suite 400 (87109-4390)Albuquerque, NM 87199-3880505-823-2300505-823-9600 (fax)

Alicia A. SanasacPO Box 194Laguna, NM 87026-0194

Matthew Carlos Sanchez601 Menaul Boulevard, NE, Unit 2802Albuquerque, NM 87107-1552

Alicia M. SantosO’Brien & Ulibarri PC6000 Indian School Road, NE, Suite 200Albuquerque, NM 87110-4179505-883-8181505-883-3232 (fax)

Jeffrey B. Schamis131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400Chicago, IL 60603-5577

Olga SerafimovaOffice of the District AttorneyPO Box 2041327 Sandoval Street (87501)Santa Fe, NM 87504-2041505-827-5000505-827-5076 (fax)

Tania ShahaniOffice of the Public Defender301 North Guadalupe Street, Suite 101Santa Fe, NM 87501505-476-0700505-476-0779 (fax)

Shannon Sherrell728 Valverde Drive, SEAlbuquerque, NM 87108-3468

Dorie Concetta Biagianti Smith6324 Jaguar DriveSanta Fe, NM 87507-1605

Matthew J. Stackpole6401 Academy Road, NE, Apt. 92Albuquerque, NM 87109-3316

Nathan S. StimsonKeleher & McLeod PAPO Drawer AA201 Third Street, NW, 12th Floor (87102)Albuquerque, NM 87103-1626505-346-4646505-346-1370 (fax)

Kyle Marie Stock1410 Coal Avenue, SWAlbuquerque, NM 87104-1005

Lee Stringham1310 Picacho Hills Drive, Suite 3Las Cruces, NM 88007-8705

Scott F. Stromberg1524 Richmond Drive, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87106-1830

Natalie R. StrubOffice of the District Attorney5100 2nd Street, NWAlbuquerque, NM 87107505-841-7670505-841-7676 (fax)

Jeremy J. Theoret1528 Hooper Road, SWAlbuquerque, NM 87105-3051

Aaron K. ThompsonAtwood, Malone, Turner & Sabin PAPO Box 700400 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1100 (88201)Roswell, NM 88202-0700575-622-6221575-624-2883 (fax)

Erin Nicole Thompson3001 Sombra del Rio, NWAlbuquerque, NM 87107-2977

Rucio Del Sagrario Toriz2601 Blanding Avenue, Suite C-356Alameda, CA 94501-1579

Jonathan A. Torres833 Bridgeway BoulevardOrlando, FL 32828-6186

Rebecca A. Torres9704 Gary AvenueLubbock, TX 79423-4011

Laura K. VegaDavid C. Chavez Law FirmPO Box 1615Los Lunas, NM 87031-1615505-865-9696505-865-9699 (fax)

Kent Wahlquist601 West San Mateo Road, #194Santa Fe, NM 87505-2902

Amber L. Weeks510 Buena Vista Drive, SEAlbuquerque, NM 87106-4021

Samuel C. Wolf159 Apache Ridge RoadSanta Fe, NM 87505-1467

Justin Robert WoolfOffice of the Attorney GeneralPO Drawer 1508408 Galisteo Street (87501)Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508505-827-6000505-827-5826 (fax)

Ha C. Yi2131 North Collins Street, Suite 433Arlington, TX 76011-2851

Roberta Marie Yurcic7424 Prospect Avenue, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87110-4543

Clerk’s CertifiCate Of reinstatement tO aCtive status

As of September 30, 2010 Jason Benjamin WheelessPO Box 40724Albuquerque, NM 87196-0724



Kathleen Jo Gibson, Chief Clerk New Mexico Supreme Court PO Box 848 • Santa Fe, NM 87504-0848 • (505) 827-4860

recent rule-making activityas updated By the clerk of the neW mexico supreme court

effeCTive sepTeMber 20, 2010

Pending PrOPOsed rule Changes OPen fOr COmment

Comment Deadline1-094 Clinical education; University of New

Mexico School of Law. (Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts) 10/25/10

1-094.1 Clinical education; out-of-state law school approved programs. (Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts) 10/25/10

4-820 CertificateofDeanoflawschool. (Civil Forms) 10/25/10

4-821 Order approving clinical law student appearance. (Civil Forms) 10/25/10

5-110 Clinical education. (Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts) 10/25/10

5-110.1 Clinical education; out-of-state law school approved programs. (Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts) 10/25/10

9-901 Certificateofdean.(CriminalForms) 10/25/109-902 Order approving clinical law student

appearance. (Criminal Forms) 10/25/105-805 Probation; violations.

(District Court Criminal) 10/25/101-125 Domestic Relations Mediation Act

programs. (Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts) 10/25/10

1-077 Appeals pursuant to Unemployment Compensation Law. (Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts) 10/25/10

Form 4-831 Petition for writ of certiorari in appeal pursuant to Unemployment Compensation Law. (Civil Forms) 10/25/10

Form 4-832 Writ of certiorari in appeal pursuant to Unemployment Compensation Law. (Civil Forms) 10/25/10

5-112 [Failure to observe rules] Criminal contempt. (District Court Criminal) 10/25/10

6-111 Criminal contempt. (Magistrate Court Criminal) 10/25/10

7-111 Criminal contempt. (Metropolitan Court Criminal) 10/25/10

8-110 Criminal contempt. (Municipal Courts) 10/25/1010-168 Criminal contempt.

(Children’s Court Rules and Forms) 10/25/10

reCently aPPrOved rule Changes sinCe release Of 2010 nmra

Effective Date

rules of civil procedure for the district courts

1-079 Public inspection and sealing of court records. 07/01/10

1-071.1 Statutory stream system adjudication suits; service and joinder of water rights claimants; responses. 06/08/10

1-071.2 Statutory stream system adjudication suits; stream system issue and expedited inter se proceedings. 06/08/10

1-071.3 Statutory stream system adjudication suits; annual joint working session. 06/08/10

1-071.4 Statutory stream system adjudication suits; ex parte contacts; general problems of administration. 06/08/10

1-071.5 Statutory stream system adjudication suits; excusal or recusal of a water judge. 06/08/10

rules of civil procedure for the magistrate courts

2-112 Public inspection and sealing of court records. 07/01/102-105 Assignment and designation of judges. 05/14/10

rules of criminal procedure for the metropolitan courts


civil forms

4-102 Certificateofexcusalorrecusal. 05/14/104-103 Notice of excusal. 05/14/104-104 Notice of recusal. 05/14/10

rules of criminal procedure for the district courts

5-605 Jury trial. 11/30/095-704 Death penalty; sentencing. 11/30/095-123 Public inspection and sealing of court records. 07/01/105-302A Grand Jury Proceedings. 05/14/10

rules of criminal procedure for the magistrate courts

6-114 Public inspection and sealing of court records. 07/01/106-105 Assignment and designation of judges. 05/14/10

rules of criminal procedure for the metropolitan courts

7-113 Public inspection and sealing of court records. 07/01/107-201 Commencement of action. 05/10/107-504 Discovery; cases within metropolitan

court trial jurisdiction. 05/10/10


rule-making activity http://nmsupremecourt.nmcourts.gov.

rules of procedure for the municipal courts


criminal forms

9-218 Target notice. 05/14/109-219 Grand jury evidence alert letter. 05/14/10

children’s court rules and forms

10-424 Advice of rights by judge. 08/30/1010-425 Consent decree. 08/30/1010-456A Affidavitofindigency;abuseorneglect. 08/30/1010-166 Public inspection and sealing of court records. 07/01/1010-313.1 Representation of multiple siblings. 05/10/10

rules of appellate procedure

12-213 Briefs. 04/12/1012-214 Oral argument. 04/12/1012-305 Form of papers prepared by parties. 04/12/1012-314 Public inspection and sealing of court records. 07/01/1012-607 Certificationfromothercourts. 05/11/10

uJi civil

13-1643 Liability for hosts. 10/18/1013-1646 Negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle. 10/18/1013-2300 Introduction. 09/27/1013-2305 Human Rights Act violation.

Withdrawn; Recompiled as UJI 13-2307 09/27/1013-2307 Human Rights Act violation. 09/27/1013-2307A Race, gender, and other discrimination

under the New Mexico Human Rights Act. 09/27/1013-2307BBonafideoccupationalqualification.

No instruction drafted. 09/27/1013-2307C Discrimination based on serious medical

condition or physical or mental handicap. 09/27/1013-2307D Failure to accommodate. 09/27/1013-2307E Undue hardship. No instruction drafted. 09/27/1013-2307F Determining whether impairment

qualifiesasaphysicalormentalhandicap. 09/27/1013-2307GDeterminingwhetherimpairmentqualifies

as a serious medical condition. No instruction drafted. 09/27/10

13-2307H Establishing disability by showing an individual has a record of a physical or mental condition. 09/27/10

13-2307I “Regardedas”defined. No instruction drafted. 09/27/10

13-2307J “Otherwisequalified”defined. 09/27/1013-2307K“Reasonableaccommodation”defined.

No instruction drafted. 09/27/1013-2307L Constructive discharge. 09/27/10

uJi criminal

14-121 Individual voir dire; death penalty cases; single jury used. 11/30/09

14-121A Individual voir dire; death penalty cases; two juries used. 11/30/09

rules governing admission to the Bar

15-304 Oath. 03/30/1015-103 Qualifications. 07/04/10

rules governing discipline

17-316 Review by the Supreme Court. 11/30/09

supreme court general rules

23-106 Supreme Court rules committees. 05/10/10

rules governing revieW of Judicial standards commission

27-106 Forms of papers. 03/03/1027-301 Commencement of proceedings. 03/03/1027-303 Response. 03/03/10

rules governing the Judicial evaluation commission

28-201 Commission created; members; staff; meetings. 02/24/10

28-202 Judicial proceedings; excusals; recusals and withdrawals. 02/24/10

28-203 Powers and duties of the Commission. 02/24/1028-205 Confidentialityofinformation. 02/24/1028-301 Judicial evaluations. 02/24/1028-302 Narrativeprofilerequirements. 02/24/1028-303 Powers and duties of the Commission. 02/24/1028-401 Criteria for evaluation of judicial performance. 02/24/10

local rules for the thirteenth Judicial district

LR13-411Electronicfilingandservicepilotproject. 07/01/10

To view all pending proposed rule changes (comment period open or closed), visit the New Mexico Supreme Court’s website at http://nmsupremecourt.nmcourts.gov.

To view recently approved rule changes, visit the New Mexico Compilation Commission’s website at http://www.nmcompcomm.us.



http://www.nmcompcomm.us


advance opinionsfrom the neW mexico supreme court and court of appeals

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/

Certiorari Denied, August 19, 2010, No. 32,511


Opinion Number: 2010-NMCA-084

Topic Index:Appeal and Error: Standard of Review

Constitutional Law: Fourth Amendment; and Suppression of EvidenceCriminal Procedure: Motion to Suppress; Search and Seizure;

and Search Warrant

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,Plaintiff-Appellee,

versusKENNETH ULIBARRI,

Defendant-Appellant.No. 28,179 (filed: July 8, 2010)

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTYABIGAIL P. ARAGON, District Judge

GARy K. KINGAttorney GeneralANN M. HARVEy

Assistant Attorney GeneralSanta Fe, New Mexico

for Appellee

JOE M. ROMERO, JR.Albuquerque, New Mexico

for Appellant

opinion

celia foy castillo, Judge

{1} Defendant Kenneth Ulibarri was charged by information with six counts of criminalmisconductincludingtraffickingof a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia.Defendantfiled amotion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of the home he shared with his grandfather, Joe Roybal (Mr. Roybal). Defendant asserted that his Fourth Amend-mentrightswereviolatedwhentheofficersforcibly entered the home without waiting a reasonable time after knocking and an-nouncing. The district court denied the mo-tion. Defendant appeals, and we reverse. I. BACKGROUND{2} At the hearing on Defendant’s motion tosuppress,fourpersonstestified:threeoftheofficerswhoexecutedthewarrantandMr. Roybal. A summary of the relevant

testimony follows. Defendant, his girl-friend, and her mother were the targets of an undercover investigation into activities related to drug trafficking.The officersobtained a search warrant for the home. Mr. Roybal was seventy-nine years old at the time of the hearing and was neither a suspect of the investigation nor suspected of wrongdoing of any kind. Shortly after Defendant and his girlfriend were arrested, theofficersexecutedthewarrant.Theleadofficerwasawareatthetimeofthesearchthat neither Defendant nor any other indi-vidual targeted in the investigation was in the home and that only Defendant and Mr. Roybal lived there.{3} Thesearchbeganatabout10:00p.m.Eightofficersweremobilized; fourwerestationed at the front door and four at the back.Theofficersknockedandannouncedtheir presence; they heard no reply of any sort from within. After waiting ten to twelve seconds,theleadentryofficerorderedhisteam to break a window as a distraction

and force entry using a battering ram. As the door swung inward, it hit Mr. Roybal, knocking him to the ground and causing him injuries.{4} Mr.Roybal testified that hewas inhis recliner watching TV when he heard a light knock on his door. He explained that he got up and approached the door when it suddenly came open and struck him on the head, rendering him temporarily un-conscious. He estimated that it took him ten seconds or less to get from the recliner to the door. There was also testimony as to recorded conversations at the jail between Defendant and Mr. Roybal during which they discussed the time between the knock and announce and the forced entry.{5} In its order denying the motion, the district court adopted the State’s proposed findings and conclusions. The findings adopted summarized the account of the testimony elicited at the suppression hear-ing:(1)thesearchwasconductedpursuantto a valid warrant; (2) Defendant resided withMr.Roybal;(3)twoteamsofofficersassembled at each of the home’s two entry ways;(4)numerousofficersknockedandannounced;(5)theentryteamtestifiedthatthey forced entry after waiting ten to twelve seconds;and(6)Mr.Roybaltestifiedthatthe wait between the knock and entry was betweenfiveandtenseconds,butoncrossexamination he admitted that he had told Defendant during a tape-recorded conver-sation at the San Miguel County Detention Center that the time was between thirty seconds and a minute. In the adopted con-clusions, the district court determined that “[u]nder the totality of the circumstances . . . , itwasreasonablefor theofficerstobelieve that they were being denied entrance after at least ten to twelve seconds and as much as thirty seconds” after the knock and announce.{6} Following the denial of the motion, Defendant entered into a conditional plea and disposition agreement. He pled guilty to possession of cocaine and heroin, admit-ted to two prior felony convictions, and reserved his right to appeal the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress.II. DISCUSSION{7} When we review a court’s denial of a motion to suppress, “[w]e view the facts in the manner most favorable to the prevailing partyanddefertothedistrictcourt’sfind-ings of fact if substantial evidence exists

http://www.nmcompcomm.us


tosupportthosefindings.”State v. Urioste, 2002-NMSC-023, ¶ 6, 132 N.M. 592, 52 P.3d 964. “All reasonable inferences in sup-port of the district court’s decision will be indulged in, and all inferences or evidence to the contrary will be disregarded.” State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018, ¶ 10, 129 N.M. 119, 2 P.3d 856 (alterations omitted) (internal quotation marks and citation omit-ted). Whether a search or seizure is reason-able is a mixed question of fact and law because determinations of reasonableness require both factual determinations and reasoned judgment. State v. Attaway, 117 N.M. 141, 145-46, 870 P.2d 103, 107-08 (1994), modified on other grounds by State v. Lopez, 2005-NMSC-018, ¶ 8, 138 N.M. 9, 116 P.3d 80. We review those questions de novo. Id.; Urioste, 2002-NMSC-023, ¶ 6 (indicating that search and seizure issues and determinations of reasonable suspicion are mixed questions of fact and law that should be reviewed de novo).{8} Wefirstaddresstheevidencesupport-ingthedistrictcourt’sadoptedfindingandrelatedconclusionthattheofficerswaited“as much as thirty seconds” after the knock and announce. We observe that Mr. Roybal admitted on cross-examination that he had made this estimation during a taped con-versation with Defendant at the jail, but on direct,hetestifiedthatthetimeperiodwasbetweenfiveandtenseconds.Theofficerstestifiedthattherelevanttimeperiodwasbetween ten and twelve seconds. The State makes no argument that the thirty-second estimation should be used as evidence in this case and relies solely on the testimony of theofficers that tento twelvesecondselapsed between the knock and announce and forced entry. Accordingly, our analysis is based on a time period of between ten and twelve seconds as this time period is supported by substantial evidence.{9} “In New Mexico, law enforcement officers are constitutionally required toknock and announce their identity and purpose, and wait a reasonable time to determine if consent to enter will be given prior to forcefully entering a [dwelling] in order to execute a search warrant.” State v. Johnson, 2006-NMSC-049, ¶ 10, 140 N.M. 653, 146 P.3d 298 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omit-ted). “The rule is part of the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures embodied in article II, section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution[] and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” State v. Vargas (Vargas II), 2008-NMSC-019, ¶ 11, 143 N.M. 692, 181

P.3d 684 (citations omitted). “A failure to comply with this requirement may result in a determination that the search was con-stitutionally unreasonable, and application of the exclusionary rule to any evidence seized as a result of such search.” State v. Vargas (Vargas I), 1996-NMCA-016, ¶ 5, 121N.M.316,910P.2d950(filed1995)(citation omitted).{10} The knock-and-announce rule serves a number of purposes. It “prevents the needless destruction of property, eliminates unnecessary intrusions on privacy, and reduces the risk of violence to both occu-pants and police.” Id. In addition, it protects “those elements of privacy and dignity that can be destroyed by a sudden entrance” and gives “occupants the time necessary to collect themselves and to prepare for the entry of the police before answering the door.” Vargas II, 2008-NMSC-019, ¶ 15 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The brief interlude between an-nouncement and entry with a warrant may be the opportunity that an individual has to pull on clothes or get out of bed.” Id. (inter-nal quotation marks and citation omitted). Yet another equally important purpose of the knock-and-announce rule is to “permit individuals an opportunity to comply with the law.” United States v. Gallegos, 314 F.3d 456, 460 (10th Cir. 2002).{11} “Refusal to consent to enter does not have to be explicit. Instead, [i]f the oc-cupantsdonotadmittheofficerswithinareasonableperiodoftime...,theofficersmay be deemed to be constructively refused admittance, and they may then enter by force.” State v. Hand, 2008-NMSC-014, ¶ 7, 143 N.M. 530, 178 P.3d 165 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and cita-tion omitted). There are no bright line rules establishing how long law enforcement officersmustreasonablywaittodeterminethat they have been constructively refused admittance. Id. “Instead, in each case, we consider the totality of the circumstances todeterminewhethertheofficers’waitwasreasonably long enough to infer that they were being denied consent to enter.” Id. “[T]he central inquiry in conducting this determination is whether an objectively reasonableofficerwouldbelieve thatoc-cupants of the residence had a reasonable opportunitytovoluntarilyadmittheofficer,thereby supporting a conclusion that the occupants refused admittance.” Gallegos, 314 F.3d at 459.{12} “We must determine whether the conductofthepoliceofficerswasreason-able in light of the facts known to them

at the time they executed the warrant.” Attaway, 117 N.M. at 147, 870 P.2d at 109. The burden is on the State to prove theofficersactedreasonably.See State v. Reynoso-Hernandez, 2003 ME 19, ¶ 9, 816 A.2d 826 (“When a defendant challenges the execution of an otherwise valid warrant pursuant to the ‘knock[-] and[-]announce’ principles of the Fourth Amendment, the burden is on the [s]tate to show the reason-ableness of the execution of the warrant.”); cf. State v. Ponce, 2004-NMCA-137, ¶ 7, 136 N.M. 614, 103 P.3d 54 (stating that it is the state’s burden, when confronted with a challenge to the constitutionality of a search or seizure, “to present testimony or other evidence showing that the arrest or search met constitutional muster”).{13} The State correctly observes that “if exigent circumstances exist, noncompli-ance with the knock-and-announce rule may be justified.” See Johnson, 2006-NMSC-049, ¶ 12. However, this point of law is inapposite in this case. The State does notarguethattheofficersfailedtocomplywith the knock-and-announce rule and that exigency justified their noncompliance.Rather,theStatearguesthattheofficersdidcomply with the knock-and-announce rule and that, under the totality of the circum-stances,theofficersreasonablyconcludedthat they were denied entry after ten to twelve seconds. Accordingly, we do not consider the exigent circumstances excep-tion in this case.{14} We turn now to the facts which comprise the totality of the circumstances in this case. The warrant was executed at roughly 10:00 p.m.The officer leadingthe entry team was aware that neither Defendant nor any other person targeted in the investigation were at the home. It was further understood that Mr. Roybal, an elderly man, was the only other person living at the home besides Defendant. The officers knocked and announced at the home, waited ten to twelve seconds dur-ing which they heard no response or any other noise from within, and forced entry. Theleadentryofficertestifiedthatitwascustomary to wait ten seconds following a knock and announce before forcing entry.{15} The State argues that, “[g]enerally, a ten-second waiting period has been ap-proved as reasonablewhen officers areattempting to execute a search warrant and have knocked and announced.” Therefore, the State contends, “[w]hen there was no response after ten seconds, it was reason-able for theofficers to conclude that theoccupants were refusing entry[.]” Two


recent New Mexico decisions regarding the knock-and-announce rule, Hand and Johnson, address factors used to decide that a waiting period of at least ten seconds is reasonable.{16} In Hand and Johnson, the officersexecuted the warrants in the early morn-ing hours. Hand, 2008-NMSC-014, ¶ 3; Johnson, 2006-NMSC-049, ¶ 2. Neither defendant responded to the knock and announce. Hand, 2008-NMSC-014, ¶ 11; Johnson, 2006-NMSC-049, ¶ 15. In both cases, the dwellings at which the search warrants were executed—a motel room and a trailer—were quite small. Hand, 2008-NMSC-014, ¶ 9; Johnson, 2006-NMSC-049, ¶ 17. Given these facts, our Supreme Court held in both cases that the officers reasonably concluded that theywere constructively refused admittance after waiting at least ten seconds without a response. Hand, 2008-NMSC-014, ¶ 13; Johnson, 2006-NMSC-049, ¶ 17.{17} The basic reasoning underlying Hand and Johnson appears to be that, as a gen-eral proposition, it should not take more than roughly ten seconds for an individual within a small dwelling to respond to an officer’srequest forentry.Therewas theadditional fact in Hand that the officersheard the “[d]efendant moving back and forth within the trailer but never toward the door[.]” Hand, 2008-NMSC-014, ¶ 11. The Court in Hand held that this fact, in conjunction with the small size of the trailer,furtherjustifiedtheofficers’beliefthat constructive refusal had been given by at least the ten-second point in time. Id.{18} In our view, the present case is distin-guishable from Hand and Johnson. Here the warrantwasexecutedatroughly10:00p.m.The home is not small like a motel room or

a trailer; it is a house with two entrances and separate rooms. It was understood that Defendant and the other suspects were not in the home when the search warrant was executed and that Defendant resided with Mr. Roybal. Accordingly, we conclude that the ten- to twelve-second period of silence which followed the knock and announce in the present matter cannot be measured in the same context as was the period of silence which followed the knock and an-nounce in Hand and Johnson. Therefore, the fact that a ten-second waiting period was deemed reasonable in those cases is not determinative here.{19} In our view, an objectively reason-able officerwould consider the time atwhich the search warrant is executed, the identity of the occupants likely to be within the dwelling at the time of the search, and the size of the dwelling to be searched in assessing whether a period of nonrespon-siveness following a knock and announce signals constructive refusal. No evidence waspresentedthattheofficersconsideredany of these facts. Rather, the findingsindicatethattheofficersreliedonthetento twelve seconds of silence following the knock and announce, in and of itself, as the basis for their conclusion that they had been constructively refused admittance. Indeed, theleadofficertestifiedthatforcingentryafter waiting ten seconds following a knock and announce is a “customary” practice. Such a practice not only violates a clear tenet of our case law that there are no bright linerulesas tohowlonganofficermustwait before inferring constructive refusal but, in this case, caused exactly the type of harms the knock-and-announce rule is designed toprevent:Roybal’shomewasneedlessly damaged; Roybal was unneces-

sarily injured; and the limited duration of time between the knock and announce and forced entry interfered with Roybal’s at-temptstocomplywiththeofficers’requestsfor admission.{20} The State cites certain generalized conditions which, in its view, explain the officers’decisiontowaitonlytentotwelveseconds. The State argues that the home wasbeingused for drug trafficking, thattheofficerscouldnotknowwhowasinthehome,andthattheofficerswereassuringtheir own safety by quickly forcing entry. Theadoptedfindingsdonotmentionthesefactsandtheofficersexecutingtheentrydid not testify that their decision to wait only ten to twelve seconds before forcing entry was premised on such concerns.CONCLUSION{21} The burden is on the State to prove that, under the totality of the circumstances in this case, a wait of ten to twelve seconds wassufficientfortheofficerstoconcludethat they were constructively refused entry and, therefore, entitled to enter by force. We view the facts found by the district court in the light most favorable to the State, butwefindtheminsufficienttosupportaconclusion that the wait of ten to twelve seconds was reasonable in this case. Thus, we conclude that the knock-and-announce rule was violated. We reverse the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to sup-press evidence, vacate Defendant’s plea, and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.{22} IT IS SO ORDERED. CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge

WE CONCUR:JONATHAN B. SUTIN, JudgeRODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge


Certiorari Not Applied For


Opinion Number: 2010-NMCA-085

Topic Index:Appeal and Error: Standard of Review

Civil Procedure: Summary Judgment; and Time LimitationsCommercial Law: Fraud; and Uniform Commercial Code

Evidence: Hearsay EvidenceProperty: Land Grants

Remedies: LachesTorts: Conversion; and Fraud

TRyNA SAAVEDRA WILDE, as personal representative of the Estate of ROSALIA A. SAAVEDRA, deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellant,versus

WESTLAND DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., WESTLAND DEVCO, L.L.C., MELLON INVESTOR SERVICES, INC., and BARBARA PAGE,

Defendants-Appellees,

andNo. 29,071



RAyMOND ARANDA,Defendant-Appellee,

andNo. 29,307



EMMA JARAMILLO, PATRICK JOSE PERCHES, EPIMENIO L. JARAMILLO, EMMA yOLANDA JARAMILLO, LORRAINE MORALES, DOMINIC CARLOS PERCHES, JOSE A. PERCHES,

JOSE A. PERCHES as custodian of SARA ESTANESLADA PERCHES, SALVADOR GREGORIO JARAMILLO, CHRISTINA MARIE JARAMILLO, ROSEMARy NIETO, and KIMBERLy ANN JARAMILLO,

Defendants-Appellees.No. 28,632 (filed: August 13, 2010)

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTYCLAy CAMPBELL, District Judge


ARNOLD PADILLAAlbuquerque, New Mexico

for Appellant

DOUGLAS G. SCHNEEBECKBRIAN K. NICHOLS

MODRALL, SPERLING, ROEHL, HARRIS & SISK, P.A.

Albuquerque, New Mexicofor Appellees

Westland Development Co., Inc.,Westland DevCo, L.L.C.,

and Mellon Investor Services, Inc.

M. CLEA GUTTERSONCIVEROLO, GRALOW, HILL & CURTIS

Albuquerque, New Mexico

PAUL R. BESSETTEJESSE Z. WEISS

GREENBERG TRAURIG, L.L.P.Austin, Texas

for Appellee Page

CLAUDINE R. SATTLERAlbuquerque, New Mexico

for Appellee Aranda

DONALD C. GILPINGILPIN & KEEFE, P.C.

Albuquerque, New Mexicofor Appellees Jaramillo/Perches

opinion

cynthia a. fry fry, chief Judge

{1} In this opinion we resolve three separate appeals brought by Plaintiff Tryna Saavedra Wilde, the personal representa-tive of the estate of Rosalia Saavedra, all stemming from the dismissal of Saavedra’s lawsuit alleging fraud, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty regarding the transferandsaleofcertificatesrepresentingshares of stock in Westland Development Co. (Westland). Of the parties relevant to this appeal, Saavedra sued Westland, West-land DevCo (DevCo), and Mellon Investor Services (collectively, the Entity Defen-dants), the heirs of Gregorio Jaramillo (the Jaramillo Defendants), Barbara Page, and Raymond Aranda for alleged wrongdoing surrounding the transfer and sale of the stockcertificates.Thedistrictcourtgrantedsummary judgment to all Defendants, and Plaintiff appeals. For the following reasons, weaffirmthedistrictcourt’sdismissalofSaavedra’s claims.I. BACKGROUND{2} Westland is an entity formed to man-age the property interests of the heirs of the Atrisco land grant. See Lett v. Westland Dev. Co., 112 N.M. 327, 327-28, 815 P.2d 623, 623-24 (1991) (reviewing the history of the Atrisco land grant and the formation of Westland). The heirs of the Atrisco land grant were each issued shares of Westland stock based on their ownership interests in the land grant. Id. at 328, 815 P.2d at 624. These shares were represented by stockcertificates thatweregiventoeachshareholder.

Griego Jaramillo and Antonio Aranda CertificatesTransferredtoNino Barboa{3} Sometime between 1974 and 1976, three registered shareholders transferred a total of four stock certificates to Sat-urnino (Nino) Barboa. Gregorio Jaramillo transferredtwocertificates(theJaramillocertificates) and Antonio Aranda trans-ferredonecertificatetoNino.Thefourthcertificateisirrelevanttothisappeal.ThecertificatesweresignedovertoNino,andNinoattemptedtoregisterthecertificatesin his name. However, due to a problem withNino’sabilitytohavethecertificatesregistered in his name because he was not an original heir of the Atrisco land grant, Aranda and Jaramillo remained the registered owners of the certificates in Westland’s records.Nino Barboa Transfers Jaramillo and ArandaCertificatestoSonnyBarboa,and Sonny Transfers to Saavedra{4} In 1984, prior to his death, Nino transferredallfourofthecertificatestohisson,Sonny.Ninodidnotendorsethecertifi-cates to Sonny, and Sonny never attempted to register the shares. Instead, in 1989, Sonnygavealloftheoriginalcertificatesto the original plaintiff in this case, Rosalia Saavedra,asagift.Thecertificateswerenot signed by Sonny or otherwise endorsed to Saavedra. In 1990 Sonny accompanied SaavedratoWestland’sofficetoattempttohave the certificates registered inSaave-dra’s name. According to Sonny, Westland refusedtoregisterthecertificates,citingaproblem with the transfer from Sonny to Saavedra.According to Saavedra’s firstamended complaint, Barbara Page, the

chief executive officer ofWestland, in-formed Saavedra that her ownership of the certificateswouldbenotedinWestland’srecords and that Saavedra should “hold on to”thecertificates.Gregorio Jaramillo and Raymond Aranda Obtain Replacement Certificates{5} In 1987, prior to the time that Sonny gavethecertificatestoSaavedra,Jaramillo,who was still the registered owner of the Jaramillocertificates,obtainedreplacementcertificates for the shares he had sold toNino. Thus, in 1990, when Saavedra and Sonny unsuccessfully attempted to have the ArandaandJaramillocertificatesregisteredin Saavedra’s name, while Saavedra pos-sessed the original certificates, Jaramillopossessedreplacementcertificatesforthesame shares represented by the original Jaramillo certificates.As a result of thefact that Antonio Aranda and Gregorio Jaramillo were still the registered owners of the certificates, dividends from theirstock continued to be paid to their heirs. The dividends paid to these heirs between 1992 and 1997 ranged from $.50 to $1.35 per share. Saavedra never received any dividendsfromthecertificatesatissueinthis case.{6} In 1998, Raymond Aranda, a descen-dant of Antonio Aranda, contacted Saave-dra and inquired about buying Antonio’s certificate fromher.Despite his inquiry,Raymond Aranda never purchased the certificatefromSaavedra.Instead,in2004,RaymondArandafiled an affidavitwithWestland stating that he was the successor of the estate of Antonio Aranda, where-uponWestland issued a new certificate


in Raymond Aranda’s name. Although Plaintiff alleged that Raymond Aranda had represented to Westland that he had lost his father’s original certificate,Plaintiffwasunable to produce evidence supporting this allegation.Saavedra Again Attempts to Register HerCertificatesandThenFilesSuit{7} In 2006 Suncal Companies acquired Westland. As a result of this acquisition, theownersofWestlandstockcertificateswere able to sell their Westland shares for approximately $315 per share. In 2007, after learning about the sudden increase in the value of the shares, Saavedra again attempted to register her certificates, butagain, Westland informed her that she could not register them.{8} Sometime after this attempt to register the certificates,Saavedradiscovered thatWestlandhad issued replacement certifi-cates to Aranda and Jaramillo. As a result ofthisdiscovery,Saavedrafiledsuitagainstthe Entity Defendants and Barbara Page. In addition,SaavedrafiledsuitagainstRay-mond Aranda and his two daughters and the Jaramillo Defendants, who are heirs of Gregorio Jaramillo who had received an in-terestinthecertificatesforwhichGregoriohad obtained replacements.{9} Saavedra sought damages for breach offiduciaryduty, conversion, and fraud,all stemming from Westland’s issuance of the replacement certificates. Specifically,Saavedra alleged that Page, as a Westland director, had afiduciaryduty “not to al-low or facilitate transfer of ownership” of the certificates and that this duty hadbeen breached when the replacement cer-tificateswereissued.SaavedraallegedthatJaramillo’s and Aranda’s acts of obtaining replacementcertificatesconstituted fraudand “improper conversion” of her prop-erty. Finally, Saavedra alleged that Page had committed fraud by representing that Saavedra’s ownership of the certificateswould be noted in Westland’s records. A short time after filing her complaint,Saavedra died, and her estate was substi-tuted as Plaintiff. In this opinion, we refer to Saavedra by name, while we refer to her estate, which is the party to this appeal, as “Plaintiff.”Motions for Summary Judgment{10} Following the filing of Saavedra’scomplaint,Defendantseachfiledseparatemotions for summary judgment. All Defen-dants argued that Saavedra’s cause of action accruedwhen shewas first informed in1990 that Westland would not register her

certificatesandthatherclaimswerethere-fore time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations or under the doctrine of laches. All Defendants except Aranda also argued that Saavedra’s claims were barred because Westland had acted in accordance with its obligationstoissuenewstockcertificatesunder Article 8 of New Mexico’s Uniform Commercial Code.{11} The district court granted all Defen-dants’ motions for summary judgment, concluding that Saavedra’s claims were time-barred and that there had been no tolling of the statute of limitations. Plaintiff separately appealed each of the court’s sum-mary judgment orders. Because all three of the appeals stem from the same complaint, we address them in one opinion.II. DISCUSSIONA. Standard of Review{12} We review an order granting sum-mary judgment de novo. Beggs v. City of Portales, 2009-NMSC-023, ¶ 10, 146 N.M. 372, 210 P.3d 798. “Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Tafoya v. Rael, 2008-NMSC-057, ¶ 11, 145 N.M. 4, 193 P.3d 551 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “We view the pleadings, affidavits, anddepositionspresented for and against a motion for summary judgment in a light most favor-able to the nonmoving party.” Deaton v. Gutierrez, 2004-NMCA-043, ¶ 12, 135 N.M.423,89P.3d672(filed2003).Sum-mary judgment is not appropriate “when the record discloses the existence of a genuine controversy concerning a material issue of fact or when the [district] court granted summary judgment based upon an error of law.” Id.B. Outline of Opinion{13} Central to all three of Plaintiff’s ap-peals is the question of whether the statute of limitations barred Saavedra’s claims. Therefore,wefirstaddressthisissueandconclude that the claims against the Jara-millo Defendants, as well as the claims against the Entity Defendants and Page thatariseoutoftheJaramillocertificates,began to run in 1990. On the other hand, we conclude that the statute of limitations applicable to Saavedra’s claims arising out of theAranda certificatebegan to run in2004 and thus, that the limitations period had not expired on the claims arising out oftheArandacertificate.WethenaddressPlaintiff’s argument that misrepresenta-tions tolled the statute of limitations appli-cable to the claims related to the Jaramillo

certificates and conclude that no tollingoccurred. Thus, the statute of limitations barred Saavedra’s claims arising from the Jaramillocertificates.{14} This leaves us with the claims against Aranda and the claims against the Entity Defendants and Page that arise out of the Aranda certificate. We hold that these claims are not barred under the doctrine of laches.{15} We then consider whether Plaintiff failed to demonstrate an issue of mate-rial fact related to Saavedra’s fraud claim against Aranda and conclude that she did so fail. Thus, summary judgment in favor of Aranda, the Entity Defendants, and Page related to Saavedra’s fraud claims was proper. We further conclude that relevant provisions of the Uniform Com-mercial Code warranted summary judg-ment against Plaintiff on Saavedra’s claim against Aranda for conversion and on all of Saavedra’s remaining claims against the Entity Defendants and Page.C. Applicability of Statute of

Limitations{16} As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff ar-gues that the district court improperly per-mitted the Jaramillo Defendants to incorpo-rate by reference the statute of limitations arguments made by Page in her motion for summary judgment. Thus, Plaintiff con-tends that the Jaramillo Defendants did not properly raise the issue and that we should therefore reverse summary judgment in their favor. Plaintiff concedes, however, that she “did not explicitly object below to this practice, believing it necessary in the exercise of diligence and caution to respond to all of [the Jaramillo [Defendants’] al-legations.” Because Plaintiff admittedly failed to preserve her argument, we decline to review the issue on appeal. Sandoval v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., 2009-NMCA-095 , ¶ 56, 146 N.M. 853, 215 P.3d 791 (“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, [a party] must have made a timely and specific objection that apprised thedistrict court of the nature of the claimed error and that allows the district court to make an intelligent ruling thereon.”).{17} The district court concluded that the statute of limitations began to run on all of Saavedra’s claims when Westland informed Saavedra in 1990 that she could not register the shares. Plaintiff contends that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until Saavedra attempted to register and redeem hercertificatesin2007andwasinformedthat Westland had issued replacement cer-tificates.Inthiscase,therelevantfactsare


generally not in dispute. As a result, “the standard of review is whether the court correctly applied the law to the undisputed facts.” Gilmore v. Gilmore, 2010-NMCA-013, ¶ 13, 147 N.M. 625, 227 P.3d 115. This presents a question of law that we review de novo. Id.{18} The statute of limitations for causes of action sounding in fraud or conversion is four years from the date that the cause of action accrues. NMSA 1978, § 37-1-4 (1880). Because New Mexico follows the “discovery rule,” the cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff discovers the fraud or conversion. NMSA 1978, § 37-1-7 (1880). For purposes of determining when the cause of action accrues, discovery is definedasthe“discoveryofsuchfactsaswould, on reasonable diligent investiga-tion, lead to knowledge of [the] fraud” or other injury. Ambassador E. Apartments Investors v. Ambassador E. Invs., 106 N.M. 534, 536, 746 P.2d 163, 165 (Ct. App. 1987) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see McNeill v. Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co., 2007-NMCA-024, ¶ 14, 141 N.M. 212, 153 P.3d 46 (noting that under the discovery rule, “a cause of action arises not necessarily at the time of injury, but rather at the time a plaintiff knows or should have known of the claims”), aff’d 2008-NMSC-022, 143 N.M. 740, 182 P.3d 121. In the absence of actual knowledge of fraud, “a reasonable-person standard will be applied as to whether [a plaintiff] should have known of the fraud.” Ambassador E. Apartments Investors, 106 N.M. at 536, 746 P.2d at 165.{19} Saavedra alleged that when she at-temptedtoregisterthecertificatesin1990,Westland “gave no reason but declined to make the transfer.” Sonny, who gave the certificatestoSaavedraandaccompaniedhertoWestland’sofficewhensheattemptedtoregister thecertificates, testified inhisdeposition that he was not sure what reason Westland gave for not registering the cer-tificates,butthathethoughtitmighthavebeenbecausethecertificateswerestillinNino’s name. Saavedra did not inquire into the reason that she was unable to register hercertificatesandtooknoactiontocom-pelWestland to register the certificates.Whether the statute of limitations began to run in 1990 thus depends on whether a reasonable person would have discovered the alleged fraud and conversion as a result ofWestland’srefusaltoregisterthecertifi-cates.{20} We discuss the commencement of the statute of limitations separately with respect

totheJaramillocertificatesandtheArandacertificatebecausedifferentcircumstancesobtain with respect to each category. In ad-dition, some of Saavedra’s claims against the Entity Defendants and Page are based on those Defendants’ alleged conduct with respecttoboththeJaramillocertificatesandtheArandacertificate.1. TheJaramilloCertificates{21} Saavedra claimed that Jaramillo fraudulently obtained replacement cer-tificates and that theEntityDefendantsand Page fraudulently issued Jaramillo the replacement certificates despite theirknowledge of Saavedra’s preexisting own-ershipoftheoriginalcertificates.Plaintiffcontends that the statute of limitations for Saavedra’s claims stemming from the is-suance of these certificates began to runwhen Saavedra discovered in 2007 that thecertificateshadbeenissued.However,when Saavedra attempted to register her certificatesin1990,Jaramillohadalreadyobtained replacement certificates from Westland. Consequently, had Saavedra undertaken a reasonable investigation into the reason she was unable to register her certificates, shewould have discoveredthat Jaramillo had obtained replacement certificates in 1987. Saavedra’s inabilitytoregisterthecertificatesthereforeconsti-tuted knowledge of facts that would have led a reasonable person to undertake further investigation into the reasons underlying the impediment to registration. Such an investigation would have uncovered the fraud allegedly perpetrated by Jaramillo, the Entity Defendants, and Page.{22} The statute of limitations for Saave-dra’s fraud and conversion claims relating totheJaramillocertificatesthereforebeganto run in 1990, which was sixteen years priortothedateSaavedrafiledherclaimsrelated to the Jaramillo certificates.Thedistrict court therefore properly concluded that Saavedra’s claims against the Jaramillo Defendants were barred by the statute of limitations. Similarly, Saavedra’s claims against the Entity Defendants and Page that stem from the Jaramillo certificatesalso began to accrue in 1990 and are also timebarred.Wethereforeaffirmsummaryjudgment in favor of the Jaramillo Defen-dants, the Entity Defendants, and Page for Plaintiff’s claims related to the Jaramillo certificates.2. TheArandaCertificate{23} Applying the same analysis to Saavedra’s claims related to the Aranda certificate,however,wereachadifferentconclusion. Unlike Jaramillo, who obtained

replacement certificates in 1987,Arandaobtained his replacement certificate in 2004. Thus, when Saavedra discovered in 1990 that she was unable to register her certificates, no amount of due diligencewould have uncovered the alleged fraud and conversion that occurred fourteen years later in 2004. Because the earliest that Saavedra could have become aware of Aranda’s alleged misconduct in requesting thereplacementcertificate(andtheallegedmisconduct of the Entity Defendants and Pageinissuingthereplacementcertificate)was 2004, we disagree with the district court’s conclusion that the statute of limita-tions for Saavedra’s cause of action against Aranda began to run in 1990. Similarly, Saavedra’s cause of action against the Entity Defendants and Page related to the Arandacertificatedidnotbegintoaccrueuntil, at the earliest, the time of the alleged wrongdoing—2004. Because Saavedra’s complaintwasfiledin2007,shewaswellwithin the four-year statute of limitations with respect to her claims stemming from theArandacertificate.D. Saavedra’s Tolling Claim as

Applied to the Claims Arising OutoftheJaramilloCertificates

{24} Because we have concluded that the statute of limitations on Saavedra’s claimsarisingoutoftheJaramillocertifi-cates began to run in 1990, we now turn to Plaintiff’s argument that the statute of limitations was tolled. Plaintiff maintains that Page made misrepresentations that led Saavedra to believe that she should not be concerned about her ownership of the cer-tificates.Thedistrictcourtconcludedthatthere was no admissible evidence support-ing Plaintiff’s assertion that Page or anyone else at Westland made misrepresentations to Saavedra regarding her ownership of the certificates.Onappeal,Plaintiffarguesthatthe court erroneously failed to consider the sworn statements Saavedra made in her complaint to be admissible evidence of the misrepresentations.{25} In the district court, Plaintiff con-tended that because Saavedra died during the course of the litigation, the court should considertheverifiedallegationsSaavedramade in her complaint as sworn statements supporting Plaintiff’s opposition to the Entity Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff argued that Saavedra’s statements in her complaint, while hear-say, were admissible under Rule 11-807 NMRA, the residual hearsay exception that allows the admission of statements “notspecificallycoveredbyRule11-803


NMRA or Rule 11-804 NMRA but hav-ing equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” Plaintiff made these arguments in response to the district court’s orderdirectingsupplementalbriefingandspecifically requestingPlaintiff to dem-onstrate the circumstances of Saavedra’s sworn statements that would support the applicability of the residual exception. Afterreviewingtheparties’briefingontheissue, the court determined that Plaintiff had failed to present any evidence of the circumstances surrounding Saavedra’s statements that would tend to guarantee their trustworthiness such that Rule 11-807 would apply, and it concluded that the statements were therefore inadmissible hearsay. In the absence of the statements in Saavedra’s complaint, there was no admissible evidence that Page made any misrepresentations to Saavedra that could have tolled the statute of limitations, and the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Entity Defendants and Page. Because the question of whether the statute of limitations had been tolled also neces-sarily affected the district court’s conclu-sion that the statute of limitations barred Saavedra’s claims against the Jaramillo Defendants, resolution of this question is therefore essential to all claims arising out oftheJaramillocertificates.1. Residual Hearsay Exception Not

Applicable{26} Plaintiff contends that she established genuine issues of material fact related to Page’s alleged misrepresentations, which served to toll the statute of limitations. She arguesthatSaavedra’sverifiedstatementsin the complaint constituted evidence of these misrepresentations. It appears that the statements on which Plaintiff relies were statements in Saavedra’s complaint alleging that Page told Saavedra that “her current ownership of the [c]ertificates would be noted in Westland records” and that when she again attempted to transfer thecertificatestohername,Saavedra“wasrepeatedly rebuffed by . . . Page.” The district court concluded that Saavedra’s statements in her complaint were hearsay, and Plaintiff does not argue that they were not hearsay. Rather, Plaintiff maintains that the statements were subject to the hearsay exception in Rule 11-807.{27} As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff con-tends thatSaavedra’s verified statements“were no different fromany affidavit ofany declarant not present in court and all inferences should have been resolved in favor of admitting her sworn statements.”

In support of this argument, Plaintiff cites Seal v. Carlsbad Independent School Dis-trict, 116 N.M. 101, 860 P.2d 743 (1993), for the propositions that “the form of sum-mary judgment evidence itself does not have to meet the requirements of admis-sibility for trial evidence, but the substance of the evidence must be of a type that can be admitted at trial” and that “a deposition that may not be admissible at trial for one reason or another is still a sworn statement thatmay contain sufficient specific factsadmissible into evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact if it is based on per-sonal knowledge.” Id. at 105, 860 P.2d at 747 (emphasis omitted). Plaintiff contends that because Saavedra’s sworn statements were based on personal knowledge, the court should have considered the allega-tions in the complaint when determining whether there were any issues of fact re-garding Page’s alleged misrepresentations to Saavedra.{28} Plaintiff ignores the distinction made in Seal between the form and the substance of summary judgment evidence. Seal makes clear that while a court must consider evidence even if the form of the evidence, such as a deposition, would be inadmissible at trial, it cannot consider evidence if the substance of the evidence is inadmissible at trial. The Court explained that hearsay, for example, “is not generally admissibleattrial,soaffidavitsordeposi-tionscontaininghearsayarenotsufficientevidence of a fact.” Id.{29} Here, the district court concluded that Saavedra’s complaint was hearsay and that the statements in it were therefore inadmis-sible for purposes of summary judgment. This conclusion was not based on the form of the evidence, but instead on the substance of the evidence Plaintiff sought to use. The substance of the evidence Plaintiff sought tousewasSaavedra’sverifiedcomplaintitself, which the district court determined to constitute hearsay, and Plaintiff does not challenge this determination.{30} Plaintiff further contends that the district court erred in concluding that Rule 11-807, the residual hearsay exception, did not apply to Saavedra’s complaint itself, which set out statements by Page alleged to constitute misrepresentations. We re-view the exclusion of hearsay testimony for an abuse of discretion. State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 10, 128 N.M. 410, 933P.2d727(filed1999).Insodoing,we“presume[] that the district court is correct and that the burden is on the appellant to clearly demonstrate the district court’s er-

ror.” Akins v. United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO, CLC, 2009-NMCA-051, ¶ 40, 146 N.M. 237, 208 P.3d 457, cert. granted, 2009-NMCERT-005, 146 N.M. 728, 214 P.3d 793. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case. We cannot say the district court abused its discretion by its ruling unless we can characterize it as clearly untenable ornotjustifiedbyreason.”Id. (alteration omitted) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).{31} Rule 11-807 provides that a statement that is not covered by the hearsay excep-tions in Rules 11-803 and 11-804 may be admitted under certain circumstances if it has “equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” The district court con-cluded that Plaintiff offered no evidence of the “circumstances which might tend to guarantee the trustworthiness of [Saave-dra’s] declarations [in the complaint].”{32} We agree with the district court. The evidence Plaintiff offered on the trustwor-thiness of Saavedra’s statements consisted of evidence tending to corroborate her statements, such as notes in the Westland file suggesting thatSaavedramaintainedan ownership interest in the certificates.According to our Supreme Court, this is notsufficient.Inassessingindiciaoftrust-worthiness, “[the] analysis focuses exclu-sively upon the circumstances surrounding the making of the out-of-court statement, disregarding other evidence that might corroborate the statement’s veracity.” State v. Ross, 122 N.M. 15, 24, 919 P.2d 1080, 1089 (1996); see Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 17 (stating, in an analysis involving the residual hearsay exception, that courts do not consider corroborating evidence). We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Saavedra’sstatementswerenotsufficientlytrustworthy to fall within the residual ex-ception to the hearsay rule.2. TheSanchezAffidavit{33} After the district court determined that it would enter summary judgment in favor of the Entity Defendants and Page, Plaintiff attempted to submit additional evidence purporting to bolster the trust-worthiness of Saavedra’s statements in the complaint.Plaintifffiledamotiontorecon-sidertowhichsheattachedtheaffidavitofHelen Sanchez, who was the shareholder relations director at Westland from 1989 to 1995. Sanchez attested that she had spoken to Saavedra on numerous occasions after Saavedra met with Page and that Saavedra


always stated that Page had told her not toworryaboutthecertificates.Intheirre-sponse to Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, the Entity Defendants argued that the court should not consider Sanchez’s affidavitbecause (1) Plaintiff, despite knowing about Sanchez’s testimony since June 2007, failed to mention Sanchez at any time prior tofilinghermotionforreconsideration;and(2)theaffidavitdidnotprovideanyindiciaof reliability such that Rule 11-807 would apply. The district court agreed with the Entity Defendants and denied Plaintiff’s motion, concluding that Plaintiff failed to establish “any grounds for failing at the hearing on the matter to make any of the new or additional arguments” contained in the motion to reconsider and that Plaintiff failed “to establish proper material grounds for reconsideration of the issues raised.”{34} On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in denying her motion to reconsider and in declining to consider the affidavitsheattachedtohermotion.Plain-tiff claims that Sanchez was unavailable to submitanaffidavituntilafterthehearingon the motion for summary judgment.{35} We review the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Nance v. L.J. Dolloff Assocs. Inc., 2006-NMCA-012, ¶23,138N.M.851,126P.3d1215(filed2005). In Nance, we upheld the district court’s denial of a motion to reconsider summary judgment where the party oppos-ing summary judgment presented evidence forthefirsttimeinamotiontoreconsidereven though the evidence was available at thetimethepartyfileditsresponsetothemotion. See id. ¶ 24. In the present case, Plaintiff contends that because Sanchez wasunavailable tosignanaffidavituntilafter Plaintiff filed her response to the Entity Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Sanchez’s affidavitwas newevidence, not evidence that was available at the time of the hearing. We disagree.{36} Plaintiff’s investigator attested that he spoke to Sanchez on June 29, 2007, and that Sanchez provided him with information regarding “her knowledge of issues related toRosaliaSaavedraandthe[c]ertificates.”Thus, as of June 29, 2007, nearly six monthsbeforethefirstsummaryjudgmenthearing on January 18, 2008, Plaintiff was aware that Sanchez had knowledge of is-suesrelatedtoSaavedraandthecertificates.Despite this awareness, Plaintiff did not mention the potential testimony of Sanchez at any time during the summary judgment proceedingsuntil shefiledhermotion toreconsider. Plaintiff contends that she was

unabletosubmitanaffidavitfromSanchezearlier because Sanchez became ill shortly after she met with Plaintiff’s investigator and did not recover until after the motion for summary judgment had been granted. However, Plaintiff fails to explain why she did not comply with Rule 1-056(F) NMRA, which provides a method by which a party can delay summary judgment in order to obtain an affidavit from an unavailablewitness.{37} In her reply brief, Plaintiff cites Pena v. Westland Development Co., 107 N.M. 560, 564, 761 P.2d 438, 442 (Ct. App. 1988), and argues that she has met all six of the elements required for granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Plaintiff does not explain why or how the rules applicable to motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence are relevant to a motion to reconsider. Plaintiff further fails to account for the fact that she was aware of Sanchez’s testimony at the time shefiledher response to theEntityDefendants’ motion for summary judg-ment.{38} Under these circumstances, we con-clude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and in refusing to con-sidertheaffidavitofSanchez.Wethereforereject Plaintiff’s argument that the Sanchez affidavitguaranteesthetrustworthinessofthe statements in the complaint.{39}Becauseweaffirmthedistrictcourt’sruling that there was no admissible evidence that Page made any misrepresentations to Saavedra, we do not address Plaintiff’s ar-guments that Page’s statements constituted fraudulent misrepresentation. E. Laches and the Aranda

Certificate{40} Because Saavedra’s claims related totheArandacertificatearenotbarredbythe statute of limitations, we now address Aranda’s argument that the doctrine of laches also serves as a bar to Saavedra’s claims against him. {41} The district court concluded that the doctrine of laches barred Saavedra’s claims againstAranda. Specifically, thecourt noted that “[Saavedra] was aware ofanumberofsignificantproblemswithrespect to the stock as early as 1989, and never did anything about it, and there is prejudice.”{42} Laches is an equitable defense that will bar a cause of action not barred by a statute of limitations when four elements are met. Martinez v. Martinez, 2004-NMCA-007, ¶ 21, 135 N.M. 11, 83 P.3d

298 (filed 2003).The required elementsare:

(1) Conduct on the part of the de-fendant, giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made and for which the complainant seeks a remedy;(2) delay in asserting the com-plainant’s rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice of the defendant’s conduct and hav-ing been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit;(3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which [she] bases [her] suit; and(4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant or the suit is not held to be barred.

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).{43} Aranda contends that there was no disputed issue of fact that all four elements of laches have beenmet.As to thefirstelement, Aranda argues that “the pivotal event” was Saavedra’s inability to register the certificates in 1990 and that “[f]romthat time forward [Saavedra] knew that therewassomeflawinthehandingalongofthecertificates”andthat“actionbytheoriginal heirs, if still living, was possible.” Aranda argues that the second element was met by Saavedra’s failure to take any action regardingherownershipofthecertificatesbetweenthedateshefirstknewtheremightbeaproblemandthedatethatshefiledsuit.With respect to the third element, Aranda contends that “the passage of time from 1974whenCertificate198wasplacedinAntonio Aranda’s name until 2004 when it was placed in . . . Aranda’s name provide[d] Aranda with no knowledge or notice that a claim would be made.” Finally, Aranda contends that he is prejudiced by the fact that the majority of the parties involved in the original transfer have died and are unable to testify.{44} We disagree with Aranda that there is no issue of fact regarding the elements of laches.Thefirstelementofthetortrequiresa showing that there was some conduct on the part of Aranda that gave rise to the situation about which Plaintiff complains. Garcia, 111 N.M. at 588, 808 P.2d at 38. None of the conduct in the early 1990s that Aranda cites, however, constitutes Aranda’s conduct giving rise to Saavedra’s com-plaint. Aranda did nothing until 2004, when


heobtainedthereplacementcertificate.Inaddition, while Saavedra was put on notice in 1990 that there were some problems withherabilitytoregisterthecertificate,she was not put on notice that Aranda was going to make an adverse claim regarding theownershipofthecertificatesometimein the future.{45} Regarding the second element, delay, Aranda has not argued that Saavedra en-gaged in any unreasonable delay between thetimeshefirstbecameawarethatArandahadobtained the certificate and the timethat the suitwas filed.The short delaybetween Saavedra’s discovery that Aranda hadobtainedthecertificatein2007andthefilingofhersuitlaterthatyearisnotthetype of delay that the doctrine of laches is intended to remedy. Even assuming that Saavedra should have known in 2004 that Arandahadobtainedareplacementcertifi-cate, we cannot say that the three-year delay betweenAranda’s conduct and thefilingof the suit was unreasonable as a matter of law.{46} With respect to the third element, Aranda argues that because Saavedra took no action to resolve the registration issues withthecertificatebetween1974and2004,he had no knowledge or notice that a claim would be made. The record before us on appeal, however, belies Aranda’s argument. According to Plaintiff, Aranda contacted Saavedra directly in 1998 or 1999 to ask about buying the certificate.Westland’snotes from that time indicate that Aranda was seeking to buy the certificate, and Aranda concedes that he was inquiring aboutpurchasingthecertificateatthattime.ByseekingtopurchasethecertificatefromSaavedra, Aranda demonstrated knowledge thatSaavedrapossessedthecertificatesandclaimed ownership of them. Thus, contrary to his argument that he had no knowledge that a claim would be made, there is evi-dence that Aranda was on notice that if he attemptedtoobtainthecertificatewithoutSaavedra’s consent, Saavedra might assert herownershipofthecertificate.{47} Finally, Aranda contends that he was prejudiced by the fact that a number of material witnesses died between the time that Saavedra first became aware of theownershipissuesandthetimethatshefiledhersuit.Specifically,hepointstothedeathsof Antonio Aranda, Nino, and Saavedra herself. Nino died in 1986, approximately threeyearsbeforeSonnygavethecertifi-cates to Saavedra. Antonio Aranda died in 1989, the same year that Saavedra received thecertificates.Thus,whileArandaargues

that Saavedra’s delay resulted in prejudice because both Antonio and Nino had died, therecordreflectsthatbothoftheseindi-viduals died before Saavedra ever obtained possessionof the certificates.Thus, it isillogical to fault Saavedra for any preju-dice caused by the unavailability of those individuals.{48} Because Aranda failed to demonstrate the existence of any of the four necessary elements for the doctrine of laches to apply, we conclude that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis of the doctrine with respect to Plaintiff’s claimsrelatedtotheArandacertificate.F. Fraud Claims Based on the

ArandaCertificate{49} Having rejected the district court’s conclusion that the claims based on the Aranda certificatewere time-barred,wenow turn to the court’s conclusion that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of any material fact supporting her fraudclaimbasedon that certificate.Saavedra’s fraud claim against Aranda was basedontheallegedfactthatArandafileda lost-certificate affidavit andobtained areplacementcertificatewhenheknewthatSaavedra had possession of the allegedly lost certificate.Thus, Saavedra’s claimsstemmed from the representations that Aranda allegedly made to Westland in order toobtainareplacementcertificate.Ingrant-ing summary judgment in favor of Aranda, the district court explained that there was no evidence “concerning a misrepresenta-tion from Aranda or to [Saavedra], whether directly or from an agent” and that “with-out evidence of a misrepresentation, there logically could[ not] be any evidence of reliance.” On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the court’s conclusion was wrong.{50} “An actionable fraud is a misrep-resentation of a fact, known to be untrue by the maker, and made with an intent to deceive and to induce the other party to act upon it with the other party relying upon it to his injury or detriment.” Unser v. Unser, 86 N.M. 648, 653-54, 526 P.2d 790, 795-96 (1974). In this case, Plaintiff claimed that Aranda misrepresented to Westland that he had lost the original cer-tificatebelongingtohisfather,despitehisknowledge that Saavedra had possession oftheoriginalcertificate.Sheclaimedthatthe Entity Defendants and Page relied on Aranda’s misrepresentation in issuing the replacementcertificateandfurtherthattheycommitted fraud in their own right by is-suing the replacement while knowing that Saavedra had the original.

{51} The problem with Plaintiff’s claims is that she failed to produce evidence of Aranda’s alleged misrepresentation. The only evidence in the record regarding the replacement certificate established that Arandafiled an affidavitwithWestlandstating that he was the successor to the estate of Antonio Aranda and that Westland issuedareplacementcertificateonthebasisofthataffidavit.Thereisnothingsuggest-ing that any of the statements in this form affidavitweremisrepresentationsbecauseAranda was indeed the successor to his father’s estate. Plaintiff therefore failed to present evidence of any misrepresentation on which to base her fraud claims.{52} Plaintiff further argues that the district court should have stayed the summary judgment proceedings to give Plaintiff an opportunity to obtain a copy of the docu-ments that Aranda submitted to Westland to obtainthereplacementcertificate.Plaintifffiled aRule1-056(F) affidavit seeking astay in order to conduct additional discov-ery and argued that the case was complex, involved voluminous documentation and that while “some discovery . . . ha[d] been conducted, much of the time spent in th[e] case ha[d] been monopolized by numer-ous pleadings and hearings related to prior motions for summary judgment.” The af-fidavitstatedthat“[e]ssentialandextensivediscovery of testimony and of documents in the possession of . . . Defendants was interrupted” by the summary judgment proceedings “and remain[] incomplete.”{53} At the hearing on the matter, the districtcourtfirstindicatedthatPlaintiff’s“Rule [1-0]56(F) affidavit is deficient” because Plaintiff made only a general statement that she needed more discovery and failed to indicate with particularity thespecificevidenceshesoughttoobtainthrough further discovery. Immediately after making that statement, however, the district court indicated that during the argument, Plaintiff’s counsel had “cleared up what [he was] looking for,” which was apparentlythelost-certificateaffidavital-legedly submitted to Westland by Aranda. The district court noted that the Rule 1-056(F) motion “ha[d] been pending for longer than three months which, under the circumstances, ought to be ample time to present to the [c]ourt any and all missing evidence.”{54} On appeal, Plaintiff argues only that “she satisfied theRule [1-0]56 require-ments for obtaining a stay of proceedings” and that a Rule 1-056(F) motion does not require the particular details of the evidence


sought to be obtained during discovery. Thus, Plaintiff contends that the district court erred in concluding that the motion andaccompanyingaffidavitweredeficient.However, as evidenced by the statements of the district court, the court did not deny Plaintiff’s motion due to its lack of particu-larity. Rather, the court indicated that Plain-tiff’scounselhadclarifiedwhathewantedto obtain through further discovery but that Plaintiff had had ample time to conduct the discovery. Plaintiff does not challenge this conclusion. Because Plaintiff challenges only the district court’s conclusion that her affidavitwas deficient, and because thecourt did not base its denial of Plaintiff’s motionon thedeficiencyof theaffidavit,we conclude there was no error. Thus, we hold that summary judgment against Plaintiff was proper on her claims based on Aranda’s alleged fraud, whether they were asserted against Aranda or against the Entity Defendants and Page.G. Conversion Claims Against

Aranda{55} The district court concluded that there was an issue of material fact with respect to Saavedra’s conversion claim against Aranda, but that the claim none-theless failed because it was time-barred by either the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches. Because we conclude that Saavedra’s claims against Aranda are not barred by the statute of limitations or laches, we address Aranda’s argument that the district court erroneously concluded that there were issues of material fact with respect to the conversion claim. Aranda argues that Saavedra’s conversion claim is governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and that she failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. We agree.{56} “Conversion is the unlawful exercise of dominion and control over property belonging to another in defiance of theowner’s rights, or acts constituting an un-authorized and injurious use of another’s property, or a wrongful detention after demand has been made.” Sec. Pac. Fin. Servs. v. Signfilled Corp., 1998-NMCA-046, ¶ 15, 125 N.M. 38, 956 P.2d 837. An essential element of a conversion claim is that the defendant exercise dominion or control over the property of another. See id.{57} Saavedra’s conversion claim against Aranda alleged that Aranda knew that Saavedra possessed the certificate and, despite that knowledge, he obtained and

redeemed a replacement certificate fromWestland. Plaintiff contends that the act of obtainingareplacementcertificateconsti-tuted conversion. We disagree. Under the common law, the issuance of a replacement certificateautomaticallyrevokedtheorigi-nalcertificate,renderingtheoriginalcer-tificatevalueless.NMSA1978,§55-8-405(1996), cmt. 2. Under the UCC, however, the issuance of a replacement certificateunder the UCC has no effect on the value oftheoriginalcertificate.See id. Section 55-8-405 makes clear that “[i]f, after the is-sueofanewsecuritycertificate,aprotectedpurchaseroftheoriginalcertificatepresentsit for registration of transfer, the issuer,” which in this case is Westland, is required to “register the transfer unless an overis-sue would result.” Section 55-8-405(b). In the event that a protected purchaser, such as (hypothetically) Saavedra, registers the originalcertificate,theissuer “may recover thenewcertificatefromapersontowhomitwas issued or any person taking under that person, except a protected purchaser.” Id. It is only “[w]here both the original and the newcertificatehavereachedprotectedpur-chasers” and “an overissue would result” thatthe“purchaseroftheoriginalcertificateis relegated to an action for damages.” Id. at cmt. 2. By contrast, if an overissue would not result, the issuer must honor both the original and the new replacement certificates. Id. Thus, Saavedra’s remedy under the UCC in the event that Westland refusedtohonorheroriginalcertificatewasa cause of action against Westland to com-pelregistrationoftheoriginalcertificate,not a conversion claim against the person whoobtainedthereplacementcertificate.{58} Thus, contrary to Plaintiff’s conten-tion that Aranda’s acquiring a replacement certificate constituted an unlawful con-version of Saavedra’s property, Aranda’s conduct and the subsequent issuance of the replacement certificate actually hadno effect on the value of the original cer-tificate that Saavedra possessed.Underthe UCC, Saavedra could have sought to compel Westland to register and redeem her certificate and, therefore, the certifi-cate retained the full value it had prior to Aranda’s obtaining a replacement. See id. Because Aranda’s conduct did not consti-tute the unlawful exercise of dominion and controloverSaavedra’soriginalcertificate,we conclude that Plaintiff failed to dem-onstrate the existence of facts necessary to prevail on her conversion claim. See Sec.

Pac. Fin. Servs., 1998-NMCA-046, ¶ 15. Wethereforeaffirmsummaryjudgmentinfavor of Aranda with respect to the conver-sion claim.H. The Entity Defendants and Page{59} As explained above, the statute of limitations with respect to Saavedra’s claims against the Entity Defendants and Page related to the issuance of Jaramillo’s replacement certificates began to run in1990. However, the statute of limitations for Saavedra’s claims against the Entity Defendants and Page related to the Aranda certificatedidnotbegintorununtil,attheearliest, 2004. Thus, summary judgment in favor of these Defendants with respect totheArandacertificatewaserroneoustothe extent it was based on the statute of limitations. However, the district court also considered the argument that summary judgment was appropriate due to the Entity Defendants’ and Page’s compliance with their obligations under the UCC. Under our right-for-any-reason doctrine, we can affirmthedistrictcourtonthisalternativebasis so long as it would not be unfair to Plaintiff. See Meiboom v. Watson, 2000-NMSC-004, ¶ 20, 128 N.M. 536, 994 P.2d 1154 (explaining that an appellate court may affirm a district court’s ruling on aground that was not relied on below if reliance on the new ground would not be unfair to the appellant). Because the parties argued the UCC issue below and on appeal, itwouldnotbeunfairtoaffirmthedistrictcourt on the basis of the Entity Defendants’ and Page’s compliance with the UCC, and we therefore address their argument.{60} The specific causes of action that Saavedra asserted against the Entity De-fendants and Page are vague. Saavedra’s first amended complaint specifically al-legedbreachoffiduciarydutyagainsttheseDefendants, but the claims for fraud and conversion appeared to be directed against the Jaramillo Defendants and Aranda. In her brief-in-chief, however, Plaintiff clarifies that “[a]t its roots, [Plaintiff’s]case against the [Entity Defendants and Page] is for fraud and conversion, arising from the fact that [the Entity Defendants] and Page allowed and facilitated transfers of the shares belonging to Rosalia Saave-dra to third parties.” Plaintiff goes on to explain that “[t]he fraud did not occur as a consequence of failure to register stocks in [Plaintiff’s] name, but arose in connection with the subsequent improper registration by [the Entity Defendants] and Page of the stocks in the names of third parties.” Saavedra’s allegations regarding breach


offiduciarydutyalsostemfromthereg-istration of the shares. Thus, we construe Saavedra’s cause of action against the Entity Defendants and Page to be solely based on the propriety of their issuance of thereplacementcertificates,whichPlaintiffcontends divested Saavedra of her owner-ship interest in the original certificates.Because Saavedra’s claims arising out of theJaramillocertificatesarebarredbythestatute of limitations, the only remaining claims against these Defendants are those arisingoutof theArandacertificate.TheEntity Defendants and Page argue that they acted in accordance with their obli-gations under the UCC when they issued the replacementcertificateand that sum-mary judgment in their favor was therefore proper.1. The UCC Required Issuance of

ReplacementCertificates{61}Article8oftheUCCimposesspecificobligations on a stock issuer requiring the issuanceofreplacementstockcertificateswhen certain conditions have been met. Section 55-8-405. Section 55-8-405(a)(1) providesthat“[i]fanownerofacertificatedsecurity...claimsthatthecertificatehasbeen lost, destroyed or wrongfully taken, theissuershallissueanewcertificateif,”among other things, the owner “so requests before the issuer has notice that the cer-tificatehasbeen acquiredby aprotectedpurchaser.” The stock issuer’s obligation to issueareplacementcertificatetothereg-istered owner stems from the requirement that the issuer “treat the registered owner as the person exclusively entitled to vote, receivenotificationsandotherwiseexerciseall the rights and powers of an owner” un-lessthecertificatehasbeenpresentedforregistration of transfer pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 55-8-401 (1996). NMSA 1978, § 55-8-207 (1996).{62} Plaintiff contends that the Entity Defendants and Page failed to comply with Article 8 because they had actual notice of Saavedra’s adverse claim, which precluded themfromissuingthereplacementcertifi-cates. In support of this argument, Plaintiff cites NMSA 1978, Section 55-8-105(a) (1996), which provides that

(a) A person has notice of an adverseclaimif:

(1) the person knows of the adverse claim;

(2) the person is aware of facts sufficient to indicate that there is a significant probabilitythat the adverse claim exists and deliberately avoids information

that would establish the existence of the adverse claim; or

(3) the person has a duty, imposed by statute or regulation, to investigate whether an adverse claim exists and the investigation so required would establish the existence of the adverse claim.

Plaintiff contends that because the En-tity Defendants and Page were aware that Saavedrahadtriedtoregisterthecertificatesin 1990 and because the Entity Defendants’ andPage’srecordsreflectedthatSaavedrapossessed the original certificates, theywere aware that Saavedra had an adverse claim that would preclude the issuance of thereplacementcertificates.{63} Plaintiff fails to recognize that the notice provision in Section 55-8-105 ap-plies only to those sections of the UCC requiring a purchasertotakethecertificateswithout notice of an adverse claim. See § 55-8-105, cmt. 1. Section 55-8-405, which governs the obligations of the stock issuer, precludes the issuance of a replacement certificateonlyiftheissuerhasnoticethattheoriginal certificatehasbeenacquiredby a protected purchaser, not where the issuer has notice of an adverse claim. See also NMSA 1978, § 55-8-404 (1996), cmt. 3 (explaining that “the fact that a third personnotifiestheissuerofaclaimdoesnot preclude the issuer from treating the registered owner as the person entitled to the security”). Thus, the Entity Defendants and Page were required to refrain from is-suing the replacementcertificatesonly ifthey had notice that a protected purchaser hadacquiredtheoriginalcertificates.{64}A“protectedpurchaser”isdefinedas“apurchaserofacertificated...security”who “(1) gives value[,] (2) does not have notice of any adverse claim to the security[,] and(3)obtainscontrolofthecertificated. . . security.” NMSA 1978, § 55-8-303(a)(1)-(3) (1996). The requirements for con-trolofacertificateinregisteredformare:“(1)deliveryasdefinedin[NMSA1978,]Section [55-]8-301(b) [(1996)], plus (2) either an effective [e]ndorsement or reg-istration of transfer by the issuer.” Section 55-8-303, cmt. 3. Plaintiff does not argue that Saavedra was a protected purchaser or that the Entity Defendants or Page had any notice that the certificates had beenacquired by a protected purchaser, nor does she contend that Saavedra gave value for thecertificatesorthattherewasaneffectiveendorsementon thecertificatessuch thatshe could be deemed to have control of the certificates.Instead,Plaintiffcontendsonly

that Saavedra possessed the physical copy of the original certificates that had beenendorsed to Nino Barboa.{65} Section 55-8-405 makes clear that an issuer is obligated to issue a replacement certificate upon request by a registeredowner unless the issuer is aware that the certificatehasbeenobtainedbyaprotectedpurchaser. Because Plaintiff does not allege that Saavedra was a protected purchaser and because it is undisputed that Aranda was the heir of the registered owner of the certificateatthetimethereplacementwasissued, we conclude that as to Saavedra the Entity Defendants and Page acted in accordance with their obligations under the UCC when they issued the replace-ment certificate.See Smouha v. MTA & J.P. Morgan Chase, 797 N.Y.S.2d 278, 284 (App. Div. 2005) (noting that compliance with Section 55-8-405 “is a defense even as against a person in possession of the security certificate”).Assuming that theEntity Defendants and Page had notice that Saavedrapossessedtheoriginalcertificate,Plaintiff does not argue that they had notice that she was a protected purchaser. The Entity Defendants and Page were there-fore required by Section 55-8-405 to issue the replacement certificatewhenArandarequested it.{66} Finally, the requirement that an issuer issueareplacementcertificateuponrequestof the registered owner stems from the fact that the issuer may be entitled to “treat the registered owner as the person exclusively entitled to . . . exercise all the rights and powers of an owner.” Section 55-8-207(a). The ability to treat the registered owner as the exclusive person entitled to exercise the rights of an owner ceases, however, upon “due presentment for registration of trans-ferofacertificatedsecurity inregisteredform”asdefined inSection55-8-207(a).While Saavedra attempted to register the transferofhercertificatesin1990,Plain-tiff does not argue that Saavedra met the requirements of Section 55-8-401, and the Entity Defendants’ and Page’s duty to treat the registered owner as the owner of thecertificateswasthereforeunaffectedbySaavedra’s unsuccessful attempt to register thecertificates.{67} Because the UCC required the Entity Defendants and Page to issue a replace-ment certificate upon the request of theregistered owner and because Aranda was the heir of the registered owner at the time heobtainedhisreplacementcertificatein2004, we conclude that as to Saavedra the Entity Defendants and Page acted in accor-


dance with the UCC when they issued the replacementcertificate.See NMSA 1978, § 55-8-107 (1996) (explaining that if the registered owner is deceased, the heir has the ability to make instructions regarding the certificate);§55-8-405 (requiring is-suertoissueareplacementcertificateuponrequest from the registered owner).2. Saavedra’s Common Law Claims

Are Inconsistent with Article 8{68} Plaintiff contends that despite the Entity Defendants’ and Page’s compliance with Article 8, Saavedra was still entitled to bring a common law action against them for fraud and conversion. Plaintiff relies on NMSA 1978, Section 55-1-103(b) (2005), which provides that “[u]nless displaced by the particular provisions of the [UCC], the principles of law and equity, including . . . fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy and other validating or invalidating cause, shall supplement its provisions.” In addition, Plaintiff argues that “New Mexico courts continue to deal with a large number of fraud claims involving securities in this UCC subject areawithoutfindingadisplacementofthecommon law.”{69} We disagree. If a stock issuer acted in violation of its obligations under the UCC, then, as Plaintiff argues, common law claims for fraud or conversion would supplement any remedy provided by the UCC. However, where a stock issuer acts in accordance with its obligations under the UCC, then a common law claim for the conduct required by the UCC would be displaced by the UCC. {70} The cases Plaintiff cites in support of her argument are not persuasive. In Gal-lagher v. Santa Fe Federal Employees Fed-eral Credit Union, 2002-NMCA-088, ¶ 18, 132 N.M. 552, 52 P.3d 412, for example, this Court held that a plaintiff’s common law claim for conversion was displaced by theUCCbecause theUCC specified theconversion liabilities to which a bank can be subject. In addition, in holding that the three-year statute of limitations in the UCC would govern any of the plaintiff’s claims that were not displaced by the UCC, we noted that “a statute of limitations applying to any of those claims of a greater period than three yearswould conflictwith thepurposes of the UCC.” Id. ¶ 25. Similarly, in Venaglia v. Kropinak, 1998-NMCA-043,

¶ 23, 125 N.M. 25, 956 P.2d 824, we noted that a common law rule that was “directly contrary” to the provisions of the UCC was displaced by the UCC.{71} Here, as in Gallagher and Venaglia, Saavedra’s common law claims are directly contrary to the provisions of the UCC and are therefore displaced. If, as Plaintiff argues, a stock issuer could be held liable for fraud or conversion for doing what it is required to do under the UCC, then the issuer would have to choose whether to violate the UCC or potentially violate the common law. Had the Entity Defendants and Page refused to issue a replacement certificateupontherequestoftheregisteredowner’s heir, Aranda, then they would have been subject to liability for disregarding their obligation under the UCC. Thus, we hold that the Entity Defendants’ and Page’s actions in accordance with their obliga-tions under the UCC displaced Saavedra’s common law claims stemming from those actions.{72} Finally, to the extent Plaintiff argues that Saavedra would be left without a remedy if she could not seek relief under the common law, we note that the UCC providesaspecificremedyforanindividualwhopurchasesastockcertificateforwhichthe registered owner has already obtained a replacement. As we explained above in discussing Saavedra’s conversion claims against Aranda, Section 55-8-405 provides the exclusive remedy through which the holderofanoriginalcertificatecanregisterthecertificatewhenareplacementhasbeenissued.{73} If, following the issuance of the replacement certificate, Saavedra had established that she was a protected pur-chaser, then the Entity Defendants would have been obligated to register the original certificatepursuanttoSection55-8-405andtorecoverthereplacementcertificatefromAranda. See In re Bame, 252 B.R. 148, 157 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2000) (explaining that if a protected purchaser presents an original certificatetoanissuerafterthereplacementcertificate is issued, the issuerwould berequired to honor both certificates).Hadthe Entity Defendants refused to register Saavedra’scertificateaftersheestablishedthe requisite ownership, Saavedra could have sought to compel registration pursu-ant to the applicable UCC provisions. See

§ 55-8-401 (explaining an issuer’s duty to register transfers). However, Plaintiff has not challenged the Entity Defendants’ and Page’s refusal to register the certificateswhen Saavedra attempted to register them in 1990 and again in 2007. That Saavedra chose to pursue an action for fraud and conversion against the Entity Defendants and Page that is inconsistent with the pro-visions of the UCC rather than the remedy provided by the UCC does not mean that she had no remedy available to her. 3. Summary Judgment in Favor of

Mellon Investment Services{74} Plaintiff argues that no argument or evidence was submitted to support sum-mary judgment in favor of Defendant Mellon Investment Services (Mellon) and that the district court’s dismissal of the claims Saavedra brought against Mellon was therefore improper. Plaintiff contends that nothing was submitted regarding dis-missal of the claims against Mellon and that she “accordingly assumed that no claim existed, andfiled no response related toMellon.” Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the Entity Defendants’ motion for summary judgment clearly sought dismissal of the claims against Westland, DevCo, and Mel-lon. That motion listed the three corporate Defendants, noted in a parenthetical that the three Defendants would be collectively referred to as the “Entity Defendants,” and sought relief on behalf of the Entity Defendants. Furthermore, in a footnote, the motion noted that because Mellon acted as Westland’s agent and because DevCo is the successor-in-interest of Westland, Saavedra’s claims against all of the En-tity Defendants should be dismissed if her claims against Westland were dismissed. Thus, the motion clearly apprised Plaintiff of the fact that the Entity Defendants sought dismissal of Saavedra’s claims against Westland, DevCo, and Mellon.III. CONCLUSION{75} Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmthe judgment of the district court dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims.{76} IT IS SO ORDERED. CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge

WE CONCUR:JONATHAN B. SUTIN, JudgeRODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge


WORKERS’COMPENSATIONJarner Law Office

is gratefully acceptingWorkers’ Compensation

Cases

Los Lunas865-1200

&Albuquerque842-0096

Mark D. Jarner

Mark D. Jarner is a Board Recognized Specialist in Workers’ Compensation.

Caren I. Friedman

APPELLATE SPECIALIST

________________

505/466-6418

[email protected]

NEIGHBORHOOD LAW CLE CONFERENCEDecember 9 & 10, 2010 at the Santa Fe Convention Center

12 CLE credits (includes Ethics & Professionalism)Tuition: $325 ($300 advance)

Mid-Day Speakers: Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles W. Daniels

& Attorney General Gary K. KingProgram Schedule and Registration Form available at:

www.santafenlc.comContact: [email protected] or (505) 988-4575 ext.6


http://www.santafenlc.com



This is as “LIVE” as it gets! Bring your Questions, Bring your CaseFile Attend a real mock trial using a real fact pattern. Demonstration features examination,

cross-examination, redirect, objections and the Court’s ruling. Speakers Include: Ahmad Assed, Hon. Marie A. Baca, David Crum, Rod Frechette,

Cynthia Payne, Ousama Rasheed, and Kurtis Ward (New Mexico State Police DWI Unit)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Professionalism and Ethics Credits for Criminal Defense Lawyers Learn and Network With Your Colleagues: Dec. 3 - Albuquerque & Dec. 10 - Las Cruces

Friday, October 29, 2010 For Intermediate and Advanced

DWI Defense Practitioners

NMCDLA (505) 992-0050 Registration and Schedule at www.nmcdla.org

NEW MEXICO CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION INVITES ITS MEMBERS TO:

DWI - LIVE! 2010

The Law Of f i ce of

Ge o rG e (Da v e) G i D D e n s , P.C.■ ■ ■

Dave GiddensPatricia A. BradleyDenise J. Trujillo

Christopher M. GattonAnn H. Washburn

■ ■ ■

Real Estate Transactions, Commercial Litigation,Bankruptcy Creditors/Debtors, Business Planning

Estate Planning, Probate, Guardianships

Tel: 505.271.1053 Fax: 505.271.4848 www.giddenslaw.com

10400 Academy N.E., Suite 350, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87111

Steven L. Tucker

Appellate Specialist

www.stevetucker.net

[email protected]

(505) 982-3467

statebar.ad9.wpd

No need for another associateBespoke lawyering for a new millennium

THE BEZPALKO LAW FIRM Legal Research and Writing

(505) 341-9353 www.bezpalkolawfirm.com

APPEALSrequire uninterrupted time.

BILL LAZAR505.988.7100


http://www.giddenslaw.com

http://www.stevetucker.net

http://www.bezpalkolawfirm.com


The RighT WRiTeR...

can make all the difference.

Jamison Barkley,former New MexicoSupreme Court Law Clerk,is now available for research and writing. Trial briefs, research memoranda,and appellate pleadings.

Call:505.795.4356

email: [email protected]

Expert WitnessCommercial Real Estate

Daniel Boardman CCIM [email protected]

DWI • MVD • RevokedTrials • Hearings • Appeals

• 5,000 + DWI Cases statewide since 1988 • Founding Member National College for

DUI Defense• Instructor NHTSA field sobriety tests• Former MVD Hearing Officer• Former Prosecutors• Certified Instructor & Key Operator RBT4• Maintenance Tech Intoxilyzer 5000 & 8000• Gas Chromatography course

Frechette & Associates, P.C.505.247.8558

www.dwinm.com

posiTions

ClassifieD

Associate AttorneyAssociate Attorney for Albuquerque or Santa Fe Office: 5-10 years experience in Family Law, Guardianships, Estate Planning, Probate, and/or Civil Litigation. Send resume and references to: 2019 Galisteo, C3, SF, NM, 87505. Fax 505.989.3440

Assistant District AttorneyThe Fifth Judicial District Attorney’s office has immediate positions open to new as well as experienced attorneys. Salary will be based upon the District Attorney Personnel and Compensation Plan with starting salary range of an Associate Trial Attorney to a Senior Trial Attorney ($41,685.00 to $72,575.00). Please send resume to Janetta B. Hicks, District Attorney, 400 N. Virginia Ave., Suite G-2, Roswell, NM 88201-6222 or e-mail to [email protected].

AttorneySeeking full-timeattorney to represent lenders in residential foreclosure cases. No billable hours requirement. Great benefits and work-ing environment. Fax cover letter, resume, & references to Susan C. Little, 254-4722 or mail to PO Box 3509, Alb 87190.

Associate AttorneySutin Thayer & Browne seeks an associate attor-ney with commercial and tax experience to join our Albuquerque office for an immediate open-ing. Applicants must be licensed in New Mexico. All replies will be kept confidential. Please send a letter of interest, resume, writing sample and transcript to Recruiting Coordinator, Sutin Thayer & Browne, P. O. Box 1945, Albuquerque, NM 87103 or email to [email protected] or fax to 505-888-6565.

Notice of RFP for Legal EditorThe New Mexico Compilation Commission (“NMCC”) seeks proposals from qualified New Mexico lawyers for the professional ser-vices of a legal editor for the publication of the NMSA 1978, New Mexico Rules Annotated and other products published by NMCC. The services include, but are not limited to: (1) Reviewing each law enacted by the New Mexico Legislature and creating compiler notes including effect of amendment notes, applica-bility notes and severability notes; (2) Prepar-ing case annotations for the NMSA 1978 and New Mexico Rules Annotated (NMRA) for opinions issued by the New Mexico Supreme Court and New Mexico Court of Appeals; (3) Determining relevancy of compiler’s notes and annotations to the NMSA 1978 and NMRA. Qualifications include New Mexico legislative writing experience, 15 years of private practice experience in New Mexico and proficiency in electronic legal research. Work load ranges from 20 to 40 hours per week. The request for proposals will be issued October 1, 2010. Lawyers interested in obtaining a copy should contact Brenda Castello at (505) 827-4821 or via email at [email protected]. Proposals must be received by NMCC no later than 5:00 MT on October 14, 2010. Proposals received after this deadline will not be accepted.

General CounselNew Mexico State Investment CouncilThe SIC seeks a General Counsel to represent the Council in connection with investment related matters involving all asset classes, contracts and transactions, litigation and other matters traditionally handled by a $14B investment management business. The success-ful candidate will have at least eight years of related experience and be licensed as an attor-ney by the Supreme Court of New Mexico or qualified to apply for a limited practice license, which requires graduation from an accredited school of law, licensure (in good standing) in another state and sitting for the next eligible New Mexico State Bar exam. Prior experience in investment or business law and litigation is required. Candidates may send inquiries and/or resumes to [email protected]

Hearing OfficerThe Pueblo of Isleta seeks a Hearing Officer to conduct hearings concerning tribal labor and employment matters at the Pueblo of Isleta and to determine penalties or the existence and the amount of liability, or recommend the ac-ceptance or rejection of claims, or compromise settlements. Work is on part-time, as needed, basis. Pay negotiable. Send resume to Pueblo of Isleta, Andrew Teller, Treasurer, PO Box 1290 Isleta, NM 87022, or [email protected]. Resumes are due by Oct. 15th, 2010.

Want to Work Less?Looking for established personal injury lawyer who wants to retire or slow down? Plaintiff’s personal injury firm is looking to combine its practice with an established personal injury or work comp lawyer who wants to cut back on their hours. Please e-mail [email protected].

Law ClerkUnited States District Court, Albuquer-que, Temp/FT Law Clerk (from 1/31/2011-5/27/2011). $68,809 - $106,369/yr, DOQ. Min qual: 2 yrs legal work exp, member in good standing of the Bar. Full position descrip-tion & requirements available at: http://www.nmcourt.fed.us. Cover letter, resume, writing sample, and three professional references to: Judge Judith C. Herrera, 333 Lomas Blvd NW, Ste.710, ABQ, NM 87102. Successful appli-cants subject to FBI background & fingerprint checks. EEO Employer.



http://www.dwinm.com



http://www


Visit the State Bar of

New Mexico’s web site

www.nmbar.org

Legal Secretaries / ParalegalsHigh Desert Staffing seeks candidates with 2-5+ years experience for both permanent and temporary positions. Call for interview: (505) 881-3449

ParalegalParalegal position available with busy general practice Albuquerque law firm. FT. 3+ years experience preferred. Experience in domestic relations a plus. Salary DOE. Great benefits and working environment. Please e-mail re-sume and salary requirements to [email protected]

Law Office for RentOne block from federal courthouse, with con-ference room and internet, built in file cabinets, off street parking, $550 a month. Call Ramona at 243-7170

serviCes

Law Offices for Lease:- 2,665 SF plus basement storage at 1005 Marquette Av NW, a short walk to the courthouses. Beautiful interior f inishes. Off-street parking. Available June 1st. - 4,050 SF at First and Lomas. 2,650 SF office on first floor, 1,400 SF office or living quarters upstairs. Can be leased separately. Fenced park-ing area. Available immediately. Call Anne Apicella, Grubb&Ellis, 880-7059

Beautiful Adobe Close to downtown, courthouses, hospitals. Reception area, conference rooms, employee lounge included. Copy machine available. Ample free parking and easy freeway access. From $250.00 per mo. Utilities included. Oak Street Professional Bldg., 500 Oak St. N. E. Call Jon, 507-5145; Orville or Judy, 867-6566.

offiCe spaCe

Two Offices AvailableBest location in town, one block or less from the federal, state, metropolitan courts. Includes secretarial space, phones and service, parking, library, janitorial, security, receptionist, daily runner, etc. Contact Thomas Nance Jones, (505) 247-2972.

Law Office For RentLaw office for rent, sharing office space with three other attorneys. Located at 8010 Me-naul NE. Front door parking. Hal Simmons, 299-8999.

620 Roma Building620 Roma, N.W. Located within two blocks of the three downtown courts. Rent of $550.00 per month includes five conference rooms, receptionist, all utilities (except phone). Call 243-3751 for appointment to inspect.

Bookkeeping and PayrollLe Rose Enterprises (505) 271-2760. Full Ser-vice Bookkeeping and Payroll, Bonded

Briefs, Research, AppealsLeave the writing to me. Experienced, Rea-sonable. Contact [email protected], (505) 281-6797

Downtown Office SpaceOcho Building, 423 6th St. Newly remodeled and under new management. Two blocks from courts. Three single offices starting at $450.00 , one 3 office and one 2 office suite available. Includes parking, all utilities (except phone line), general receptionist, high-speed internet, VOIP phone system, copier available, two conference rooms and security system. Contact Charles Lill, 247-3900 or [email protected].

MD Medical ExpertExpertise in general surgery, hand surgery, plastic, reconstructive and cosmetic surgery. Available for chart review and medical legal reports. Specialing in chart analysis with a quick turn around time. 36 years of clinical experience. Credentials are impeccable. Rich-ard C. Gobeille, MD, 505-856-1619.

Attorney - Associate (At-Will)Criminal Court/On Record AppealsThe Second Judicial District Court is accepting applications for a At-Will Attorney Associate in Criminal Court/On Record Appeals. POSI-TION SUMMARY: Under general direction as assigned by a Judge or a supervising attorney, review on-record appeal cases, perform legal research, evaluation, analysis, make recom-mendations and prepare written briefs for the Judges of the Criminal Court. EDUCATION/EXPERIENCE: Must be a graduate of a law school meeting the standards of accreditation of the American Bar Association; possess and maintain a license to practice law in the State of New Mexico. Three (3) years of experience in the practice of Criminal or Appellate Law. Experience Substitution: None. SALARY: $35.341 hourly plus benefits. Send application with proof of education to the Second Judicial District Court, Human Resource Office, P.O. Box 488 (400 Lomas Blvd. NW), Albuquer-que, NM 87102. Applications without copies of information requested on the employment application will be rejected. Applications may be obtained on the Judicial Branch web page at www.nmcourts.gov. Resumes will not be accepted in lieu of application. Closing date: October 15, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. EOE

www.nmbar.org

posiTions WanTeD

MisCellaneous

Will SearchHas anyone in Albuquerque prepared a Last Will and Testament for Virginia D. Benoit since May 25, 1993? Please contact the Law Office of Roger A. Stansbury, Esq. 505-275-0017, or e-mail at [email protected].

Court Financial ManagerThe Third Judicial District Court in Las Cruces, NM is accepting applications for a Court Financial Manager. Salary Range: $54,882 - $85,754. Quals: B.A. in Public. Admin, Business, Finance, Accounting or re-lated field. Exp: 5 years in budgeting, AP/AR, cash receipting/control, audit, gen. ledger, fin. reporting/procurement and 2 yrs. Supervisory Exp. Relevant masters degree exp, CGFM/CPA or CPFO cert. may sub. for 1 yr. Exp. View posting at www.nmcourts.gov and access application forms. Call 505-827-4956. Closes 10/15/10 @5pm.

Legal SecretaryDowntown insurance defense firm seeking FT legal secretary with 5+ yrs. recent, litiga-tion experience. Current knowledge of State and Federal District Court rules a must. Prior insurance defense experience preferred. Strong work ethic, positive attitude and superior gram-mar, clerical and organizational skills required. Good benefits. Salary DOE. Send resume and salary history to: Personnel, Madison, Harbour & Mroz, P.A., P.O. Box 25467, Albuquerque, NM 87125 or fax to 242-7184.

Experienced Legal AssistantExperienced Legal Assistant looking for con-tact work. Present work load allows for one more attorney. Please call 505-730-3256.




http://www.nmcourts.gov



http://www.nmcourts.gov

Friday, October 22, 2010 African American Performing Arts Center

New Mexico Expo 310 San Pedro NE Albuquerque, NM

Drive through Gate 3 at the New Mexico Expo off San Pedro Performing Arts Center is immediately to the north

Presented by the

ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE: CAN YOU GET IT IN? CAN YOU PRESERVE IT?

FREE PARKING


AGENDA 8:00 - 8:45 REGISTRATION

8:45 - 9:00 WELCOME

Shammara Henderson President NMBLA

9:00 - 11:00 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS, A POWERFUL LITIGATION TOOL

Kenny Calhoun Manager, GIS Services Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.

Howard Thomas Assistant U.S. Attorney

11:00 - 11:15 BREAK

11:15 - 12:15 COURTROOM PRESENTATION

Randi McGinn Attorney at Law

12:15 - 1:15 LUNCH On Your Own

1:15 - 2:15 ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE ISSUES OF ADMISSIBILITY AND PRESERVATION

Justice Edward Chávez New Mexico Supreme Court

Judge Robert Robles New Mexico Court of Appeals

Judge Linda Vanzi New Mexico Court of Appeals

2:15 - 2:30 BREAK

2:30 - 3:30 ETHICAL ISSUES AND OVERWHELMING THE “LITTLE GUY”

Regina York Moss Associate, Keleher & McLeod Law Firm

Christine Long Attorney, New Mexico Disciplinary Board

3:30 - 4:30 PROFESSIONALISM IN THE ELECTRONIC AGE

Michael Hoses Assistant U.S. Attorney


TUITION $189 Please return registration

with payment to: NMBLA

P.O. Box 695 Albuquerque, NM 87103‐0695

Visit http://www.newmexicoblacklawyersassociation.org/index.html

to learn more about the New Mexico Black Lawyers Association

CLE CREDIT 4 HOURS General

1 HOUR Professionalism 1 HOUR Ethics




Presented by the


FREE PARKING



8:45 - 9:00 WELCOME





11:00 - 11:15 BREAK








2:15 - 2:30 BREAK














REGISTRATIONLast Name _______________________________________________________________________________________

First Name _____________________________________________________________________ MI _______________

Firm/Organization _________________________________________________________________________________

Address __________________________________________________________________________________________

Email Address _____________________________________________________________________________________

Phone Number _____________________________________________ Bar Number ____________________________

OR REGISTER ONlINE vIA PAYPAl @http://www.newmexicoblacklawyersassociation.org/cle.html

E lecTron ic Ev idence : Can you geT iT IN?

Can you Preserve iT?

OR REGISTER ONLINE VIA PAYPAL @

http://www.newmexicoblacklawyersassociation.org/cle.html

REGISTRATION

LAST NAME __________________________________________________

FIRST NAME ______________________________________ MI ________

FIRM/ORGANIZATION ___ ______________________________________

ADDRESS ___________ _________________________________________

EMAIL ADDRESS _______________________________________ ______

PHONE NUMBER _____________________ BAR NUMBER ______ _____

Purchase Orders Welcome!! Questions? Call

NMBLA Treasurer 505.450.1032




Presented by the


FREE PARKING



8:45 - 9:00 WELCOME





11:00 - 11:15 BREAK








2:15 - 2:30 BREAK

















Presented by the


FREE PARKING



8:45 - 9:00 WELCOME





11:00 - 11:15 BREAK








2:15 - 2:30 BREAK















First Name _____________________________________________________________________ MI _______________


Address __________________________________________________________________________________________

Email Address _____________________________________________________________________________________







REGISTRATION

LAST NAME __________________________________________________

FIRST NAME ______________________________________ MI ________


ADDRESS ___________ _________________________________________

EMAIL ADDRESS _______________________________________ ______







Presented by the


FREE PARKING



8:45 - 9:00 WELCOME





11:00 - 11:15 BREAK








2:15 - 2:30 BREAK

















Presented by the


FREE PARKING



8:45 - 9:00 WELCOME





11:00 - 11:15 BREAK








2:15 - 2:30 BREAK















First Name _____________________________________________________________________ MI _______________


Address __________________________________________________________________________________________

Email Address _____________________________________________________________________________________







REGISTRATION

LAST NAME __________________________________________________

FIRST NAME ______________________________________ MI ________


ADDRESS ___________ _________________________________________

EMAIL ADDRESS _______________________________________ ______




8:00 am – 4:30 pm

http://EVIDENCE:

http://EVIDENCE:

http://www.newmexicoblacklawyersassociation.org/index.html

http://www.www.newmexicoblacklawyersassociation.newmexicoblacklawyersassociation.REGISTRATION



http://www.newmexicoblacklawyersassociation.REGISTRATION




http://Orders

http://Orders

http://Pedro

http://Pedro



http://Orders

http://Orders

http://Pedro

http://Pedro



http://LAST

http://LAST