AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves multiple appeals related to efforts by Barbara Saul to execute and foreclose on property awarded to Diane Saul in a divorce from L.N. Saul, Barbara's son. Barbara intervened in the divorce, claiming Diane and L.N. were indebted to her. The disputes centered around a stipulated judgment between L.N. and Barbara, Barbara's attempt to foreclose on Diane's property based on this judgment, and a separate action involving a promissory note originally held by Wells Fargo Bank, which Barbara purchased.

Procedural History

• District Court, Eddy County, June 27, 2008: Partial decree dissolving the marriage between L.N. and Diane, reserving jurisdiction over division of community property and debts.
• District Court, Eddy County, July 1, 2009: Stipulated judgment entered between L.N. and Barbara during divorce proceedings.
• District Court, Eddy County, September 3, 2009: Formal order dividing community property, awarding the Loving home and ranch to Diane as her sole and separate property.
• District Court, Eddy County, May 4, 2011: Order for relief from judgment and order nunc pro tunc, amended order dividing community property nunc pro tunc, and the stipulated judgment nunc pro tunc.
• District Court, Eddy County, March 1, 2011: Order granting Diane’s motion for summary judgment in the Wells Fargo suit, denying Barbara’s motion for summary judgment.

Parties' Submissions

• Barbara Saul: Argued that she was entitled to execute and foreclose on the property awarded to Diane based on a stipulated judgment against L.N. Saul, her son. Contended that the stipulated judgment was a community debt and that she had a right to execute on L.N.'s interest in the community property.
• Diane Saul: Argued that the stipulated judgment should not attach to any property awarded to her in the divorce. Claimed that the debt to Barbara was barred by the statute of limitations and that the stipulated judgment was intended to only reach property awarded to L.N. as his separate property.
• L.N. Saul: Participated in the stipulated judgment with Barbara, agreeing that he owed her a significant sum, which was used to purchase the Loving home and ranch.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in modifying the stipulated judgment pursuant to Rule 1-060(B)(6) NMRA.
• Whether the dragnet clause in the Wells Fargo loan documents captured the stipulated judgment between L.N. and Barbara.
• Whether Barbara was entitled to attorney fees and a judgment against Diane for the balance owed under the note.

Disposition

• The district court's orders, judgments, and decrees in the respective cases on appeal were all affirmed.

Reasons

• The court found that the stipulated judgment was approved under certain conditions, and Barbara's actions in filing and transcribing the judgment before the court ruled on pending matters amounted to exceptional circumstances justifying the use of Rule 1-060(B)(6). The court also held that the dragnet clause in the Wells Fargo loan documents did not capture the future debt of the stipulated judgment between L.N. and Barbara, as there was no nexus or connection between the debts. The court concluded that Barbara did not demonstrate that work performed on claims for which she was not entitled to receive attorney fees was "inextricably intertwined" with work for which she was entitled to compensation, thus no abuse of discretion in refusing to award Barbara's attorney fees.