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 a foreclosure action initiated by BAC Home Loans Servicing LP against the Toloumus. After a default judgment was entered, Gregory Hutchins, claiming to have purchased the property from the Toloumus, sought to intervene in the proceedings to set aside the default judgment on the basis that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the foreclosure action.

Procedural History

• October 2009: Plaintiff filed a complaint for foreclosure (para 2).
• September 2011: A default judgment was entered (para 2).
• July 2012: Appellant's attorney entered an appearance, asserting Appellant's interest in the property (para 2).
• January 2013: Motion to set aside the default judgment was denied (para 2).
• August 2014: Appellant filed a motion to intervene to challenge the foreclosure judgment (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that he was a real party in interest after purchasing the property and sought to set aside the default judgment on the basis that the Plaintiff lacked standing to bring the foreclosure action (para 2).
• Plaintiff: Supported the denial of Appellant's motion to intervene and to set aside the default judgment, as indicated by their filing of a memorandum in support of the court's decision to affirm the denial (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Appellant was informally allowed to intervene in the foreclosure proceedings (para 3).
• Whether the Appellant could challenge the foreclosure judgment on the basis of standing after the motion to set aside the default judgment was denied (para 3-4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Appellant's motion to intervene for purposes of setting aside a foreclosure judgment (para 5).

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring): The court reasoned that the Appellant should have appealed the January 2013 order denying the motion to set aside the default judgment. It was believed that the Appellant was informally allowed to intervene, and thus, was required to appeal the rejection of the standing argument at that time. The court also noted that since the standing issue had already been litigated and rejected, it could not be relitigated under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA as a substitute for an appeal. Furthermore, even if the court accepted the Appellant's argument that his motion to intervene was denied in the earlier proceedings, he should have appealed that ruling and, as part of that appeal, could have challenged the merits of the standing issue. The failure to do so justified the district court's denial of his attempt to relitigate the issues (paras 3-4).