Court of Appeals of New Mexico

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  Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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

No. A-1-CA-40625

US BANK TRUST NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION, not in its individual

capacity, but solely as TRUSTEE OF

LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION

TRUST,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOEL S. HICKERSON a/k/a JOEL

SCOTT HICKERSON a/k/a SCOT J.

HICKERSON,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION; BANK OF AMERICA,

N.A.; and KIRSTEN HICKERSON,

Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Lisa C. Ortega, District Court Judge

Rose Ramirez & Associates, P.C.

Eraina M. Edwards

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

Joel S. Hickerson

Albuquerque, NM

Pro Se Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HENDERSON, Judge.

{1}       Defendant Joel S. Hickerson (Appellant) a self-represented litigant, appeals from the underlying foreclosure judgment, the order confirming sale, and special master’s report. We previously issued a notice of proposed disposition in which we proposed to summarily affirm. Appellant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.

{2}       We previously set forth our analysis relative to the merits of the various issues suggested by the docketing statement. The memorandum in opposition offers no principled response. Instead, Appellant simply continues to assert that the statute of limitations should have barred the action, or alternatively, that he should be said to have adversely possessed the subject property. [MIO 1-3] As described in the notice of proposed summary disposition, these arguments run afoul of clear legal authority, which Appellant has entirely failed to acknowledge. Because the memorandum in opposition contains no new, rationally responsive argument, we adhere to our initial assessment with respect to all issues. See generally State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that “[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact,” and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374.

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

{4}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge

WE CONCUR:

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Chief Judge

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge