Tays v. Tays, 35,843

Background

Patrick D. Tays (Plaintiff) sued regarding division and administration of trust property; matter proceeded in district court after an April 6, 2015 hearing.
Craig Tays (Defendant) moved to settle the trust based on a settlement agreement reached in prior litigation (mediated in 2005) that the prior court memorialized in a 2007 order despite Plaintiff not signing the agreement.
At the April 6, 2015 hearing the district court ruled on Defendant’s motion; parties were told to submit a proposed order reflecting the oral rulings.
The district court applied collateral estoppel based on the 2007 order, dismissed the present challenge to the settlement terms, and adopted an order consistent with its bench rulings.
The district court awarded attorney and accountant fees to be paid from the trust; Plaintiff appealed raising due-process, notice, procedure, and fee-related objections.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Notice / Due process re April 6, 2015 hearing	Plaintiff says he was surprised and lacked fair notice and opportunity to be heard	Motion and hearing request were served in advance; no continuance requested	Court: Plaintiff received reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard; no due-process violation
Preclusive effect of prior settlement / collateral estoppel	Plaintiff says he never signed or agreed to the prior settlement	Prior litigation, mediation, evidentiary hearing, and 2007 order established the agreement as to trust division	Court: Defensive collateral estoppel applies; district court correctly enforced/relied on 2007 order
Applicability of Mediation Procedures Act	Plaintiff cites Act to argue prior mediation settlement must be signed to be enforceable	Act became effective after 2007 order; no retroactivity argument made	Court: Act (effective July 1, 2007) does not apply retroactively to 2007 order
Rule 1-054.1 / Written order timing	Plaintiff contends written order shows bench ruling was insufficient or rule was violated	Court announced ruling from bench and asked parties to draft order memorializing rulings	Court: No Rule 1-054.1 violation; oral ruling followed by a written order consistent with bench decision
Adoption of defendant-drafted order / findings	Plaintiff says court abdicated duty by adopting Defendant’s draft verbatim	Draft accurately reflected the court’s oral rulings	Court: Adoption did not abdicate responsibility; order mirrors bench findings
Clerk failure to file later petitions / denial of rulings	Plaintiff argues petitions were not filed/rule on, denying due process	Court disposed of all issues on April 6, 2015 and later denied subsequent pleadings	Court: Record shows rulings and subsequent denials; no reversible error
Award of attorney and accountant fees	Plaintiff argues fees were unauthorized and trustees mismanaged trust	Fees were awarded by district court; challenge to fee basis not preserved below	Court: Fee award affirmed; new arguments not preserved for appeal

Key Cases Cited

State v. Barazza, 791 P.2d 799 (1990) (failure to request continuance undermines claim of unfair surprise)
Rutherford v. City of Albuquerque, 829 P.2d 652 (1992) (procedural due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
Sandoval v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., 215 P.3d 791 (2009) (doubts in the record are resolved in support of the district court)
Hyden v. Law Firm of McCormick, Forbes, Caraway & Tabor, 848 P.2d 1086 (1993) (defensive collateral estoppel elements and application)
Warner v. Calvert, 258 P.3d 1125 (2011) (Mediation Procedures Act effective date and scope)
Wolfley v. Real Estate Comm’n, 668 P.2d 303 (1983) (appellate courts generally decline issues raised first on appeal)