Rule 1-059.New trials; motions directed against the judgment

On occasion, parties have filed a motion to reconsider after these motions were denied, requiring the court to consider the motion and then enter an additional order, thereby arguably extending the time for filing a notice of appeal until the motion to reconsider denial of the earlier motion was itself denied. The 2013 amendment to Rule 1-059 NMRA ends this practice by requiring that any motion to reconsider a judgment must be filed within thirty (30) days of entry of the judgment that is the subject of the motion. As a result, after a Rule 1-050(B) NMRA motion, a Rule 1-052(D) NMRA motion, or a Rule 1-059(A) or (E) NMRA motion is made and denied, a motion to reconsider those rulings is not available and the time for appeal cannot be extended by filing a motion to reconsider. If, however, one of those motions is granted and a new judgment is entered, a party may then make a motion to reconsider the newly entered judgment. Court rulings or orders that are not final for the purpose of appeal continue to be “subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all claims.” Rule 1-054(B)(1) NMRA; see Melnick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 106 N.M. 726, 728, 749 P.2d 1105, 1107 (1988).

Section 39-1-1 NMSA 1978, adopted in 1897, provides that a trial court in some cases has continuing jurisdiction over its judgments for thirty (30) days after their entry. See, e.g., Laffoon v. Galles Motor Co., 80 N.M. 1, 450 P.2d 439 (Ct. App. 1969). Rather than have a ten (10) day time requirement for filing most post-judgment motions but a thirty (30) day time frame for filing motions under Section 39-1-1 NMSA 1978, the 2013 amendments extend the time for filing all post-trial motions to thirty (30) days from entry of the final judgment. The decision to extend the time to thirty (30) days for all motions rather than to limit Section 39-1-1 NMSA 1978 motions to ten (10) days was made because the prior ten (10) day requirement often left insufficient time for parties to research, formulate, and prepare post-judgment motions. In addition, the choice of thirty (30) days makes it unnecessary to determine whether the provision in Section 39-1-1 NMSA 1978 for extended post-judgment jurisdiction of the district court is consistent with the principle of separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. See Rule 1-091 NMRA; Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 89 N.M. 307, 551 P.2d 1354 (1976). The intent and effect of the 2013 amendments to Rule 1-059(B) and (E) NMRA, Rule L-050(B) NMRA, and Rule 1-052(E) NMRA is to expand the time for filing all motions challenging an entered judgment to thirty (30) days from entry of judgment with the exception of motions made pursuant to Rule 1-060 NMRA, which have separate, longer time limits.

Motions are no longer deemed denied if not ruled upon for thirty (30) days after submission. Rule 1-054.1 NMRA. See the Committee Commentary for 2006 Amendment to Rule 1-054.1 NMRA for additional information. Instead, Rule 1-054.1 NMRA directs district courts to enter an order within sixty (60) days of submission. Id. Normally, the party filing a post-judgment motion has to await entry of an order from the district court ruling on the motion before filing an effective notice of appeal because where a timely Rule 1-059(A) or (E) NMRA motion has been filed, the time for filing a notice of appeal runs from the date of entry of an order that expressly disposes of the motion. Dickens v. Laurel Healthcare, LLC, 2009-NMCA-122, ¶ 4, 147 N.M. 303, 222 P.3d 675 (notice of appeal filed prior to ruling on pending Rule 1-059(E) NMRA motion is premature and time for filing notice of appeal does not begin to run until order is entered resolving Rule 1-059(E) NMRA motion). A party who makes a timely Rule 1-059 (A) or (E) NMRA motion, or a motion pursuant to Section 39-1-1 NMSA 1978, may thereafter prefer to forgo an express ruling on the motion, see Rule 12-216(A) NMRA (“[N]or is it necessary to file a motion for a new trial to preserve questions for review.”), and, instead, start the appellate process. Appellate Rule 12-201(D)(3) NMRA provides that a Rule 1-059 NMRA movant may file a notice of withdrawal of the motion, thus affecting the time for filing a notice of appeal as provided in Rule 12-201(D)(3) NMRA.

Under Rule 12-201 (D)(4) NMRA, a timely filed notice of appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to dispose of any timely filed motion under Rules 1-050, 1-052, or 1-059 NMRA, or a Rule 1-060 NMRA motion filed within thirty (30) days after the filing of a judgment. The notice of appeal becomes effective when the last such motion is disposed of expressly by an order of the district court, is automatically denied, or is withdrawn.

Rule 1-059 NMRA formerly provided that the moving party “serve” a Rule 1-059 NMRA motion within the time provided by the rule. To make this rule consistent with Rule 1-050 NMRA, Rule 1-052 NMRA, and Section 39-1-1 NMSA 1978, Rule 1-059 NMRA now provides that the motion must be “filed” within thirty (30) days. See Rule 1-050 NMRA (requiring “filing” within time set by rule); Rule 1-052(D) NMRA (formerly requiring that motion be “filed” within time set by rule but now requiring that motion be “filed” by deadline); Section 39-1-1 NMSA 1978 (requiring motion to be “filed” within time period set by statute).

See the Committee Commentary for 2006 Amendment to Rule 1-054.1 NMRA for additional information.

[As amended by Supreme Court Order No. 13-8300-032, effective in all cases pending or filed on or after December 31, 2013.]