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 the Defendants, self-represented litigants, appealing from the district court's order which denied their motion for reconsideration of the court's denial of their motion for relief from judgment in a foreclosure action initiated by the Plaintiff. The Defendants contested various motions and primarily disputed the Plaintiff's standing in the foreclosure proceedings.

Procedural History

• District Court of Torrance County, October 22, 2013: Denied Defendants' timely motion that sought reconsideration of the judgment of foreclosure (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants: Argued that the district court erred in its rulings on various motions, with a significant focus on disputing the Plaintiff's standing in the foreclosure action. They pursued all ten issues listed in their docketing statement despite the appellate court's proposed summary disposition affirming the district court's decision (paras 1-2).
• Plaintiff: Contended that the Defendants' appeal lacked merit, particularly regarding the challenge to Plaintiff's standing, the authenticity of loan documents, and claims under the Truth in Lending Act, the Unfair Practices Act, and other statutes. The Plaintiff argued that these issues were either not preserved for appeal, time-barred, or unsupported by evidence (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendants waived their ability to challenge the Plaintiff's standing on appeal by failing to timely appeal from the district court's final order of October 22, 2013 (para 3).
• Whether a judgment is voidable under Rule 1-060(B)(4) NMRA for lack of standing (para 4).
• Whether Defendants' issues related to the authenticity of loan documents or to statutory violations are properly before the court in this collateral attack (para 5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the Defendants' motion for reconsideration of the denial of their motion for relief from judgment (para 6).

Reasons

• LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, with M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, and STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge, concurring:
  The Court found that the Defendants waived their right to challenge the Plaintiff's standing by not timely appealing the district court's final order of October 22, 2013. The appellate review was thus limited to whether Defendants established grounds for relief from the foreclosure judgment under Rule 1-060(B) (para 3).
  The Court clarified that a judgment is not voidable for lack of standing under Rule 1-060(B)(4) NMRA, aligning with precedent that standing in a foreclosure action is prudential and not a jurisdictional requirement. Therefore, the lack of standing does not render a foreclosure judgment voidable under Rule 1-060(B), dismissing Defendants' challenge to Plaintiff's standing (para 4).
  Regarding Defendants' issues related to the authenticity of loan documents and statutory violations, the Court was not persuaded by the Defendants' arguments. It noted that these issues were either not preserved for appeal, were time-barred, or unsupported by evidence. The Court emphasized that such claims should have been raised as counterclaims in the foreclosure proceeding and were not appropriate for consideration in this collateral attack (para 5).