IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LAWRENCE DIETZ, Deceased, ROBERT BRUCE DIETZ, SR., Personal Representative v. BRETT WAYNE PUTNEY
No. A-1-CA-43067
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
HENDERSON, Judge.
Petitioner-Appellee: Robert Bruce Dietz, Sr., Valparaiso, FL, Pro Se Appellee. Proposed Intervenor-Appellant: Brett Wayne Putney, Santa Fe, NM, Pro Se Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY, Matthew J. Wilson, District Court Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HENDERSON, Judge.
{1} Appellant, a self-represented litigant, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to intervene in the probate action of the estate of his deceased boyfriend (Decedent) with whom Appellant lived and to whom he was engaged to marry. We issued a notice proposing to summarily affirm. Appellant responded to our notice with a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. We remain unpersuaded and affirm.
{3} Appellant’s response to our notice contains heartfelt statements about how unfairly and dismissively he felt he was treated in multiple ways throughout the process, both before and after the district court denied Appellant’s motion to intervene. [MIO 1-5] In doing so, Appellant raises new matters related to his treatment with respect to the estate property, how Decedent’s remains were treated, and how Appellant’s appeal was ignored. [MIO 1-3] Appellant suggests that these matters demonstrate the prejudice he suffered from the denial of intervention. [MIO 3-4] We disagree. Generally, for purposes of appeal, prejudice does not require a showing of merely a harmful consequence of a ruling; it requires a showing that an erroneous ruling was made that affected the result of the case. See In re Elizabeth A., 2024-NMCA-017, ¶ 23, 542 P.3d 793 (“We are a court of review and our function is to see if legal error that would change the result occurred.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also id. ¶¶ 23-26 (holding that even where the district court made an error, we will affirm if there was error that did not prejudice the appellant because it would not change the result); In re Pulver, 1994-NMCA-024, ¶ 8, 117 N.M. 329, 871 P.2d 985 (explaining that “for error to be reversible, it must be prejudicial,” meaning that correction of the error would change the result). In the current case, we are not persuaded that the district court erred.
{4} Appellant’s assertions about his interests in intervening in the probate action, while heartfelt, are not supported by citation to legal authority. We are not aware of any New Mexico legal authority that supports what we understand to be a claim that Appellant should have been treated as the domestic partner of Decedent, with rights to participate in the probate proceeding. The New Mexico Legislature has recognized the right of committed couples to participate in the health care decisions of their partner, but has not extended this to having a legal right to participate in the probate of a domestic partner’s estate. See Hartford Ins. Co. v. Cline, 2006-NMSC-033, ¶ 11, 140 N.M. 16, 139 P.3d 176 (discussing the failed attempt in the Legislature “to pass legislation intended to extend the rights, protections[,] and benefits enjoyed by spouses in a marriage to domestic partners.” Id. ¶ 10. Nor does New Mexico recognize common-law marriage. See id. ¶ 13. “If we were to say that the same rights that cannot be gained by common-law marriage may be gained by the implications that flow from cohabitation, then we have circumvented the prohibition of common-law marriage.” Merrill v. Davis, 1983-NMSC-070, ¶ 9, 100 N.M. 552, 673 P.2d 1285.
{6} For the reasons stated above and in our notice, we affirm the district court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to intervene.
{7} IT IS SO ORDERED.
SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge
WE CONCUR:
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge