Santa Fe Pacific Trust, Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 285 P.3d 595

SFPT and Bigbyte are Florida corporations doing business in New Mexico; SFPT owns Central Avenue property leased to Bigbyte.
SFPT asserted inverse condemnation, due process, and tortious interference claims against the City; Count IV alleged breach of a real estate exchange with SFPT.
Bigbyte was joined to Counts I–III in May 2008; Count IV remained only against SFPT and the City.
District court granted summary judgment on Counts I–II in favor of the City; Count III was dismissed by agreement; Count IV remained pending.
On November 25, 2009, the district court entered a summary judgment order certifying the case for interlocutory appeal, stating there were no genuine issues of material fact and the judgment disposed of Counts I–II.
SFPT and Bigbyte sought interlocutory appeal; Count IV settled with the City in 2010; Bigbyte joined the settlement but was not a party to the contract.
SFPT filed a notice of appeal on November 18, 2010; Bigbyte’s amended notice adding Bigbyte as appellant followed on December 16, 2010; the City moved to dismiss Bigbyte as untimely.
Court of Appeals dismissed Bigbyte’s appeal as untimely; New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari to address finality of the November 25, 2009 summary judgment and timeliness of Bigbyte’s appeal.
The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, holding the November 25, 2009 summary judgment was a final order as to Bigbyte and Bigbyte failed to file a timely notice of appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the November 25, 2009 summary judgment final as to Bigbyte?	Bigbyte contends not final; ambiguity and non-final language permit appeal.	District court language and Rule 1-054(B)(2) support finality as to Bigbyte since Counts I–II were disposed and Bigbyte consented to dismissal of Count III.	Final judgment as to Bigbyte; appeal untimely.
Does the interlocutory-appeal language render the judgment non-final for Bigbyte?	Language could indicate non-final disposition for Bigbyte.	No facial non-final language; ambiguity resolved by context and later filings.	Ambiguity resolved against Bigbyte; finality established.
Could Bigbyte excuse an untimely appeal under exceptional circumstances or judicial error?	Untimeliness excused due to unusual circumstances or court error.	No unusual circumstances or court error; party controlled the filing.	Untimeliness not excused.
Does judicial estoppel apply to prevent changing positions about finality?	City’s positions implied non-finality; estoppel should apply.	No misrepresentation to the court; estoppel does not apply given she district court order controls jurisdiction.	Judicial estoppel not applicable.

In re Adoption Petition of Homer F. v. Jeremiah E. (In re Sam Jackson F.), 146 N.M. 845 (N.M. 2009) (clarifies finality and interlocutory-appeal certification requirements)
Chavez v. U-Haul Co. of N.M., 124 N.M. 165 (N.M. 1997) (untimely appeals allowed only with unusual circumstances or court error)
Romero v. Pueblo of Sandia, 134 N.M. 553 (N.M. 2003) (untimely appeal allowed where court misled about review path)
Trujillo v. Serrano, 871 P.2d 369 (N.M. 1994) (exception for court-caused untimeliness; strict adherence to procedure)