Vigil v. Whitchurch, 35,941

Plaintiff Frank J. Vigil sued three tenants (Reisha Whitchurch, Felicia Whitchurch, and Joseph Narvaiz) for amounts due under a residential lease.
Defendants (the three tenants) proceeded pro se in the appellate court.
The district court entered judgment in favor of Vigil for unpaid rent and awarded attorney fees.
On appeal, Defendants raised multiple, unclear issues and failed to supply a concise statement of material facts as required by Rule 12-208(D).
The Court of Appeals issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm and invited a response; Defendants filed a memorandum opposing the notice but again did not provide sufficient record detail.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, concluding Defendants failed to demonstrate error and emphasizing joint liability principles for cotenants and the insufficiency of Defendants’ challenge to the attorney-fee award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Liability of individual cotenant (Felicia) for unpaid rent	Vigil asserted rent due under lease from all named tenants	Defendants argued the $4,170 judgment against Reisha and Narvaiz should not apply because Felicia breached the lease and should be separately liable	Affirmed: cotenants are generally jointly and severally liable; Defendants did not show agreement or authority to impose separate liability on Felicia
Attorney fees awarded by district court	Vigil sought recovery of attorney fees for work performed in prosecuting the claim	Defendants contended fees (including $1,000) were improper because plaintiff's counsel did not formally appear in magistrate court and raised other procedural objections	Affirmed: Defendants failed to provide record-based proof to rebut the fee award; court presumed plaintiff established work corresponding to fee award

Economy Rentals, Inc. v. Garcia, 112 N.M. 748, 819 P.2d 1306 (1991) (explains joint and several liability in contract law)
Muse v. Muse, 145 N.M. 451, 200 P.3d 104 (2009) (appellate court will not search the record for facts or construct arguments for parties)
Headley v. Morgan Mgmt. Corp., 137 N.M. 339, 110 P.3d 1076 (2005) (appellate courts do not review unclear arguments or guess at a party's position)
State v. Talley, 103 N.M. 33, 702 P.2d 353 (1985) (docketing statements serve as a substitute for the complete record on summary calendar)
State v. Aragon, 127 N.M. 393, 981 P.2d 1211 (1999) (presumption that record supports fee awards absent challenge)
State v. Chamberlain, 109 N.M. 173, 783 P.2d 483 (1989) (same principle regarding appellate review of fee awards)