Court of Appeals of New Mexico

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

BROKER SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a
NEW AMERICAN FUNDING,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PATRICK J. ARCHULETA
Defendant-Appellant,
and
THE UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF
PATRICK J. ARCHULETA, in any;
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY; and
WILLIAM BURTON,
Defendants.

No. 35,539

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO

September 1, 2016

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY, Sylvia F. LaMar District Judge

COUNSEL

Rose L. Brand & Associates, PC, Eraina M. Edwards, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee

Law Office of Peter B. Shoenfeld. P.A., Peter B. Shoenfeld, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant

JUDGES

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge. WE CONCUR: MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge

AUTHOR: MICHAEL E. VIGIL

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VIGIL, Chief Judge.

{1}       Defendant-Appellant Patrick J. Archuleta appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to set aside a summary judgment against him on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, entered on March 3, 2016. [2 RP 379] In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily affirm based on the Supreme Court’s newly issued opinion, Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Johnston, 2016-NMSC-013, 369 P.3d 1046. Appellant filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO), which we have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.

{2}       In his memorandum in opposition, Appellant argues that, because he asserted the defense of lack of standing in his answer to the complaint, Johnston does not apply to the present case. [See MIO 2–4] In essence, Appellant is arguing that, because he asserted the defense in his answer and because Plaintiff Broker Solutions, Inc. did not raise or brief Appellant’s defense in its motion for summary judgment, the facts that he did not respond to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, that a final judgment was entered against him, and that he did not file his post-judgment motion until after the period for appealing such final judgment had expired, are not relevant in determining whether he may raise prudential standing in his post-judgment motion. [See id.] However, Appellant fails to cite any authority in support of such a proposition, so we assume no such authority exists. See Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co., 2014-NMCA-031, ¶ 28, 320 P.3d 482 (“Where a party cites no authority to support an argument, we may assume no such authority exists.”).

{3}       Moreover, Johnston made clear that “a final judgment on any . . . cause of action [other than one that lacks standing as a jurisdictional matter], including an action to enforce a promissory note such as this case, is not voidable under Rule 1-060(B) due to a lack of prudential standing.” Johnston, 2016-NMSC-013, ¶ 34 (emphasis added). As Appellant filed his motion to set aside the judgment due to Plaintiff’s purported lack of prudential standing after the period for appeal following entry of a final judgment had expired [1 RP 123, 146], see Rule 12-201(A)(2) NMRA (stating that a notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after the judgment appealed from is filed in the district court clerk’s office), the fact remains that the final judgment is not voidable under Rule 1-060(B) due to a lack of prudential standing, see Johnston, 2016-NMSC-013, ¶ 34, regardless of whether Appellant asserted the defense in his answer to the complaint.

{4}       Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm.

{5}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge

WE CONCUR:

MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge