Brewer v. Niemyjski

1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please
2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.
3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated
4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does
5 not include the filing date.
6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
7 WILLIE H. BREWER and
8 ANNA NITA BREWER,
9 Plaintiffs-Appellees,
10 v. NO. 29,688
11 TADEUSZ NIEMYJSKI,
12 Defendant-Appellant.
13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY
14 John W. Pope, District Judge
15 Steider & Associates, P.C.
16 Timothy D. Steider
17 Albuquerque, NM
18 for Appellees
19 Tadeusz Niemyjski
20 Meadow Lake, NM
21 for Appellant
22 MEMORANDUM OPINION
23 WECHSLER, Judge.
1 Defendant Tadeusz Niemyjski appeals the district court’s judgment ordering
2 him to vacate real property and to pay damages, costs, and attorney fees. On
3 September 1, 2009, this Court filed a notice of proposed summary disposition
4 proposing to affirm the district court. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition
5 to summary disposition, which we have given due consideration. We affirm the
6 district court.
7 Defendant argues that it was error for the district court to allow Plaintiffs Willie
8 H. and Anna Nita Brewer to sue him as individuals rather than as trustees of the
9 Brewer Family Trust. Rule 1-017(A) NMRA provides: “Every action shall be
10 prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest; but [a] trustee of an express trust
11 . . . may sue in that person’s own name without joining the party for whose benefit the
12 action is brought.”
13 “Interpretation of both a court rule and a statute are questions of law that we
14 review de novo on appeal.” State v. Romero, 2006-NMCA-126, ¶ 5, 140 N.M. 524,
15 143 P.3d 763, aff’d, 2007-NMSC-030, 141 N.M. 733, 160 P.3d 914. “In interpreting
16 a Supreme Court rule of procedure, we look first to the rule’s plain language.” Gates
17 v. State, Taxation & Revenue Dept., 2008-NMCA-023, ¶ 10, 143 N.M. 446, 176 P.3d
18 1178. “If the rule is unambiguous, we give effect to its language and refrain from
2
1 further interpretation.” In re Michael L., 2002-NMCA- 076, ¶ 9, 132 N.M. 479, 50
2 P.3d 574. “[The rules of civil procedure] shall be construed and administered to
3 secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.” Rule 1-
4 001(A) NMRA.
5 We conclude that the language of Rule 1-017(A) is unambiguous, and thus the
6 Brewers, who are trustees of an express trust, could sue in their own names without
7 specifying their capacity as trustees. Accordingly, we affirm the district court.
8 IT IS SO ORDERED.
9 _______________________________
10 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
11 WE CONCUR:
12 _______________________________
13 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge
14 _______________________________
15 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
3