Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,435 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Frick v. Veazey - cited by 97 documents
Decision Content
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST CO. AMERICAS V. VAN ROOYEN
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY
AMERICAS, as Trustee,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROBERT M. VAN ROOYEN and
LISA P. MARSTON-VAN ROOYEN,
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 32,341
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
February 14, 2013
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY,
Beatrice J. Brickhouse, District Judge
COUNSEL
Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A., William R. Keleher, Jennifer L. Bradfute, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee
Albuquerque Business Law, P.C., Patrick J. Griebel, Heather S. Jaramillo, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge. WE CONCUR: JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI, Judge.
Defendants/Appellants, Robert M. Van Rooyen and Lisa P. Marston-Van Rooyen, appeal from the district court’s order denying Defendants’ emergency motion to vacate default judgment and special master sale (“motion to vacate”). [DS 2, 5, RP 323] We issued a notice on January 7, 2013, proposing to summarily affirm. Defendants had twenty days from the date of service of this notice to serve and file a memorandum in opposition. Rule 12-210(D)(3) NMRA. Defendants have failed to file either a memorandum in opposition to our proposed summary disposition or a request for an extension of time. On January 28, 2013, Plaintiff/Appellee, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, filed a memorandum in support of our proposed summary disposition. We have previously held that “[f]ailure to file a memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance of the disposition proposed in the calendar notice.” Frick v. Veazey, 116 N.M. 246, 247, 861 P.2d 287, 288 (Ct. App. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to vacate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
WE CONCUR:
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge