Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In Re Estate of Herrera

New Mexico Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: Unknown

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (8)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (12.4K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the
citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-
generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of
Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE
OF ELIPIO MIZEL HERRERA,

Deceased,

EPIFANIA JARAMILLO, No. A-1-CA-42568
Rio Arriba County
Personal Representative-Appellant. D-117-PB-1994-00025

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This matter comes before the Court upon Appellee Frederick Herrera’s motion to
dismiss the appeal, filed with this Court on April 3, 2025. The Court notes the following:

1. On March 15, 2018, Appellant Epifania Jaramillo filed a petition to reopen
   

   the Estate of Elipio Mizel Herrera and reappoint her as personal representative. [3 RP
   671]

2.   In the years that followed, both parties filed numerous motions related to
   

   the petition, including two motions by Appellee to remove Appellant as the personal
   representative. [3 RP 694; 6 RP 1445]

3. On September 23, 2024, the district court entered an order interpreting the
   

   Last Will and Testament of Elipio Mizel Herrera. [9 RP 2080] Subsequently, on February
   4, 2025, following a hearing held on January 15, 2025, the district court entered a
   detailed order on two motions filed by Appellee: (1) the motion to transfer Coyote
   Property and liquor license profits to Herrera’s children and freeze Epifania Jaramillo’s
   assets until the profits from the Blue Spruce Bar could be distributed; and (2) the motion
   to remove personal representative, Epifania Jaramillo, for breach of fiduciary duty. In
   addition, the district court also considered the motion filed by Appellant for entry of a
   final order disposing of all outstanding issues. [9 RP 2198-2202]

4. In its order, the district court stated that
   

[t]he issue of the interpretation of the [Elipio Mizel Herrera’s w]ill needs to
be decided by the Court of Appeals before the Court considers arguments
presented in [Appellee]’s Motion to Remove Personal Representative,
Epifania Jaramillo, for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and the outcome of the
appeal may impact the manner in which estate assets are to be
distributed. [9 RP 2198]

In addition, the district court stated that “[a]n immediate appeal would materially
advance the ultimate termination of this litigation.” [9 RP 2198]

1.  On February 28, 2025, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the district
   

   court’s order. [9 RP 2211]

2.  Our review of the record proper and the district court proceedings on
   

   Odyssey indicates that the three motions set forth above remain pending, as it does not
   appear that the district court has ruled on any of them.

3. “This Court’s jurisdiction lies from final, appealable orders.” Coulston
   

   Found. v. Madrid, 2004-NMCA-060, ¶ 7, 135 N.M. 667, 92 P.3d 679. An appellate court
   does not have jurisdiction when a final judgment has not been entered. See, e.g., State
   v. Griego, 2004-NMCA-107, ¶ 22, 136 N.M. 272, 96 P.3d 1192 (dismissing for lack of
   jurisdiction when no final judgment had been entered), abrogated on other grounds by
   State v. Skeets, -NMSC-, ¶¶ 15, 22, ___ P.3d ___ (S-1-SC-40418, Feb. 12,
   2026); State v. Garcia, 1983-NMCA-017, ¶¶ 29-30, 99 N.M. 466, 659 P.2d 918 (same).

4. Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal and argues that Appellant should
   

   have appealed the September 23, 2024 ruling, that the February 2025 order is not final,
   and that Appellant did not properly pursue an interlocutory appeal. [Motion to Dismiss at
   3, 8]

5.  Probate matters involve unusual finality determinations. In re Est. of
   

   Newalla, 1992-NMCA-084, ¶¶ 10-16, 114 N.M. 290, 837 P.2d 1373. In a supervised
   administration, a probate matter is not final until the district court orders distribution of
   the estate. Id. ¶¶ 11, 13; In re Est. of Duran, 2007-NMCA-068, ¶ 11, 141 N.M. 793, 161
   P.3d 290. In an unsupervised administration, each petition institutes a separate action
   and the orders resolving a petition become final when all matters raised by that petition
   are disposed. In re Est. of Duran, ¶ 14, 2007-NMCA-068; see NMSA 1978, § 45-3-107
   (1975) (same). In some cases, matters ancillary to a petition do not impact finality. See
   In re Est. of Boyer, 1994-NMCA-005, ¶ 13, 117 N.M. 74, 868 P.2d 1299 (citing Kelly Inn
   No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 1992-NMSC-005, 113 N.M. 231, 824 P.2d 1033).

6. The parties dispute whether this matter involved a supervised
   

   administration. Based on our review of the record, the answer to that question is
   unclear.1 Fortunately, we need not answer it for purposes of this order. If the matter was
   a supervised administration, the district court has not yet entered an order to distribute
   and so the matter would not be final. If the matter is unsupervised, there are three
   pending motions before the district court that relate to the subject matter of the 2018

1Although there are indicators that the district court is exercising authority consistent with a supervised
administration, we could not locate any findings or orders for supervised administration as required by
NMSA 1978, Section 45-3-502 (1975).
petition and belong to that proceeding. See In re Estate of Newalla, 1992-NMCA-084,
¶ 15 (explaining that “once a petition is filed, it defines a proceeding” and “[f]urther
pleadings relating to the same subject matter, whether labelled motions or petitions, are
part of the same proceeding”). Those motions have not been resolved and are not
ancillary to the petition. We are therefore without a final order.

1. We also observe that the district court did not certify its order for
   immediate review under Rule 1-054(B) NMRA or for interlocutory appeal. See Rule 1-
   054(B) (stating that when an action presents more than one claim for relief or when
   multiple parties are involved, any order—adjudicating fewer than all the claims or the
   rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties—is not a final order, unless the district
   court directs entry of a final judgment by expressly determining there is no just reason
   for delay); see generally Rule 12-203 NMRA (outlining the procedure for interlocutory
   appeals); NMSA 1978, § 39-3-4(A)-(B) (1999) (providing that an appellate court may
   assume jurisdiction over a nonfinal interlocutory order only if the district court certifies
   that it “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for
   difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order or decision may
   materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation”). Absent such certifications,
   there is no basis for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over the nonfinal order that
   Appellant seeks to bring before this Court. See, e.g., Garcia, 1983-NMCA-017, ¶ 28
   (observing that an appeal “must be dismissed for non-compliance with the procedural
   requirements of law” where the trial court did not certify that the appeal involves a
   controlling question of law). Although the district court included in its order that “[a]n
   immediate appeal would materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation[,]” it
   did not certify that the order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is
   substantial ground for difference of opinion.” See § 39-3-4(A); Garcia, 1983-NMCA-017,
   ¶ 28.

2. Accordingly, we conclude that because it does not appear a final order
   has yet been entered, this appeal is premature and should be dismissed. See Dickens
   v. Laurel Healthcare, LLC, 2009-NMCA-122, ¶ 7, 147 N.M. 303, 222 P.3d 675
   (dismissing the appeal when no final judgment had been entered).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is
GRANTED and that this appeal is HEREBY DISMISSED as premature and this case is
CLOSED.

KRISTOPHER N. HOUGHTON, Judge

JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge

KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge