• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Adding addtional evidence

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

What is the name of your state? New Mexico

I can’t find my original posting to add to it, probably because it’s too old. Hopefully the administrator will rectify that for me :)
To recap, I was granted a preliminary injunction to stop a farmer hauling open truckloads of cow manure past my house. At the moment I’m just waiting for the jury trial date to be set, but have decided to file a motion for summary judgment to try and finalize the issue.
At the hearing the evidence to support my claim of private nuisance was multiple videos of the trucks and the associated dust that was seen covering my property. All of the videos and satellite photos have been accepted as evidence in the case. The defendant at no time disputed any of my claims of nuisance, but instead relied on his perceived immunity from such legal actions according to the New Mexico Right to Farm Act.
The primary section of the Act I intend to use to negate this defense is:-

“D. No cause of action based upon nuisance may be brought by a person whose claim arose following the purchase, lease, rental, or occupancy of property proximate to a previously established agricultural operation or agricultural facility, except when such previously established agricultural operation or agricultural facility has substantially changed in the nature and scope of its operations.”

The substantial change of operations has been proven at the preliminary injunction (Thank you Google Earth), so I need to prove to the court that I didn’t move to the nuisance but in fact the nuisance moved to me. This proof will be that I purchased my property in 2005 and the nuisance farmer bought the field in 2014. In fact he only registered his business in 2012, but claims he had been using the field for decades, which is untrue.
Now finally to the question. When I file the motion for summary judgment can I simply attach a copy of my deed which shows the purchase date, a copy of the farmers business license, and a copy of the change of ownership from the County Assessors Office as evidence to prove I was there first? The rules of civil procedure are somewhat vague on introducing new evidence when filing a motion.

All the documents meet the requirement of being self authenticating, as they all have both an official seal and signature.

RULE 11-902. EVIDENCE THAT IS SELF AUTHENTICATING
The following items of evidence are self authenticating; they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted.

Domestic Public Documents that are Sealed and Signed
A document that bears
(a) a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States; a Federally Recognized American Indian Tribe or Nation; the former Panama Canal Zone; the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands; a political subdivision of any of these entities; or a department, agency, or officer
of any entity named above, and
(b) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation.
(2)
Domestic Public Documents that are Not Sealed but are Signed and Certified
A document that bears no seal if
(a) it bears the signature of an officer or employee of an entity named in Rule 11-902(1)(a) NMRA, and
(b) another public officer who has a seal and official duties within that same entity certifies under seal--or its equivalent--that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine.
 


FlyingRon

Senior Member
True copies of deeds and the like typically bear such seals that prove their authenticity. Do the best you can. It largely depends on what the defendant says in his opposition. To get a summary judgment, they have to assume all the opposing party's claims in the best possible light for them and then determine that there is no possibility of them prevailing.

In your case, it would seem that proving you preceded the nuisance is a key point, but not the only point. You don't get a summary judgment based on one aspect.
 

Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
The substantial change of operations has been proven at the preliminary injunction (Thank you Google Earth), so I need to prove to the court that I didn’t move to the nuisance but in fact the nuisance moved to me. This proof will be that I purchased my property in 2005 and the nuisance farmer bought the field in 2014. In fact he only registered his business in 2012, but claims he had been using the field for decades, which is untrue.
Summary judgment is proper if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Koenig v. Perez, 104 N.M. 664, 665, 726 P.2d 341, 342 (1986). In this case it seem though there is a genuine issue of material fact: Whether he has been using the field for decades.
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
I suspect Neil's argument is that the scope of the operation greatly increased after he purchased his property. Whether this will fly or not depends on the answer of the defendant in it's best possible light compared to Neil's. Not enough information here (and no I don't want to see anymore) to tell us what that might be. But, Neil should probably expect the summary motion to be denied if the opposition can say something the least bit compelling, they don't have much burden of proof on their side at this point.
 

bcr229

Active Member
The substantial change of operations has been proven at the preliminary injunction (Thank you Google Earth), so I need to prove to the court that I didn’t move to the nuisance but in fact the nuisance moved to me. This proof will be that I purchased my property in 2005 and the nuisance farmer bought the field in 2014. In fact he only registered his business in 2012, but claims he had been using the field for decades, which is untrue.
Perhaps I missed it in the prior threads but do you have proof that the current owner wasn't using/renting the neighboring property in some way before he purchased it in 2014?
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Perhaps I missed it in the prior threads but do you have proof that the current owner wasn't using/renting the neighboring property in some way before he purchased it in 2014?
I remember the threads pretty well, and there was certainly no indication that he used it to dump huge quantities of manure before buying it. So, even if he was using it in some other way prior to 2014 the dumping of huge quantities of manure would be a large material change in use.
 
I suspect Neil's argument is that the scope of the operation greatly increased after he purchased his property. Whether this will fly or not depends on the answer of the defendant in it's best possible light compared to Neil's. Not enough information here (and no I don't want to see anymore) to tell us what that might be. But, Neil should probably expect the summary motion to be denied if the opposition can say something the least bit compelling, they don't have much burden of proof on their side at this point.
The evidence I presented was satellite images going back about 20 years which showed that no manure was stored on the field prior to 2014. The images then show that in 2014 a new mile long road had been built and about 30 acres of the field are now piled high with manure. The defendant admitted that this area was used to store the manure, and not all of it was destined to be applied to that field.
So substantial change would be; transporting and storing thousands of tons of manure where none was ever stored before, and the building of a mile long road for the trucks to transport this manure.
 
Perhaps I missed it in the prior threads but do you have proof that the current owner wasn't using/renting the neighboring property in some way before he purchased it in 2014?
The defendants statement at the preliminary hearing was that he began using the field in 2012. This was contradicted by defendants response to one of my filings where he stated that he had been using the field for decades.
This is still 7 years after I had purchased my property.
 
Back to my original question.
When I file the motion for summary judgement do I simply attach, as new evidence, copies of my deed, the defendants business license and the Assessors record of sale of the field to my motion to substantiate my claim?
 

bcr229

Active Member
The defendants statement at the preliminary hearing was that he began using the field in 2012. This was contradicted by defendants response to one of my filings where he stated that he had been using the field for decades.
This is still 7 years after I had purchased my property.
Got it. I just wondered if you'd verified with the prior property owner when the current one actually started using it, since he's shown himself to be a lying sack of what he's dumping on the property...

Also is the injunction still in effect and are the trucks still using the other entrance?
 

quincy

Senior Member
Back to my original question.
When I file the motion for summary judgement do I simply attach, as new evidence, copies of my deed, the defendants business license and the Assessors record of sale of the field to my motion to substantiate my claim?
When you file your motion for summary judgment, you need to state your facts and support each fact with admissible evidence (e.g., affidavits, exhibits) that establishes these facts.
 

Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
Back to my original question.
When I file the motion for summary judgement do I simply attach, as new evidence, copies of my deed, the defendants business license and the Assessors record of sale of the field to my motion to substantiate my claim?
Cuz I'm in a REALLY good mood:

You attach an affidavit with the motion for summary judgment. Here's a sample

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF TRANSYLVANIA
Alfred Newman,
Plaintiff,
v.
Buford Pusser, in his official capacity as
Charlotville Chief of Police,
Defendant,
Territory OF TRANSYLVANIA,
Intervenor-Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
4:18-cv-12345
DECLARATION OF Susan B. Anthony IN SUPPORT OF
THE Territory’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I, Susan B. Anthony, hereby declare and state the following:

1. I am an Assistant Attorney General at the Transylvania Office of the Attorney General and am a member in good standing of the Transylvania bar. I represent the Territory in this matter.

2. I make this declaration in support of the Territory’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Unless stated otherwise, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and am competent to testify thereto.

3. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs Answers to the Territory of Transylvania’s Interrogatories.

4. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs 2008 application to renew his Fortune Teller's license.

5. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of an email from Hillary Clinton to Bill Bill Clinton, dated April 7, 2008, regarding the Plaintiffs 2008 application to renew his Fortune Teller's license, as well as the result of an Automated Fingerprint Identification System check on the Plaintiff.

6. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs 2015 application for a Fortune Teller's license.

7. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a Judgement in the case of Untied States of America v. Alfred Newman, No. X12345-67, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, dated July 4, 1776.

8. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of a letter from the Charlotville Police Department to the Plaintiff dated April 1, 1816, denying the Plaintiffs application for a Fortune Teller's license.

9. Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of a letter from the Charlotville Police Department to the Plaintiff dated December 7, 1941, denying the Plaintiffs application for a Fortune Teller's license.

10. Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of the following article: Garen J. Wintemute et al., Prior Misdemeanor Convictions as a Risk Factor for Later Violent and Firearm-Related Criminal Activity Among Authorized Purchasers of Handguns, 280 J. Am. Med. Ass’n 2083 (1998).

11. Attached as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of the following article: Mona A. Wright et al., Felonious or Violent Criminal Activity That Prohibits Gun Ownership Among Prior Purchasers of Handguns: Incidence and Risk Factors, 69 J. Trauma 948 (2010).

12. Attached as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of the following report: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Fact Sheet: Profile of Nonviolent Offenders Exiting State Prisons (Oct. 2004), available at http://his.gov/content/pub/pdf/pnoesp.pdf.

13. Attached as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of the following report: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 (Apr. 2014), available at http://www.bis.gov/content/pub/pdl7rprts05p0510.pdf.

14. Attached as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the following report: U.S. Govt. Accountability Office, States’ Laws and Requirements for Concealed Carry Permits Vary across the Nation (July 2012), available at http:// www. gao. go v/assets/600/5 925 52 .pdf.

15. Attached as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of the following article: Jose Pagliery, Gun Form Liars May Go on to Commit Gun Crimes, Internal ATF Research Suggests, CNN Investigates (Dec. 21, 2018), available at https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/21 /us/gu.n-for.mliars-atf-invs/index.htmi.

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 29th day of February, 1919.

Susan B. Anthony
 
E

Edgar 1776

Guest
you received a decent reply on what to do , so i wont repeat that
However, motions for summary judgement are rarely granted, and you better brush up on your rules of evidence and civil procedure if you intend to represent yourself in this matter.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top