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 Defendants, acting as self-represented litigants, appealed against the district court's order confirming sale and special master's report related to a property transaction. The Defendants argued that the instruments involved, including the Special Master's Deed, were invalid due to a lack of objection to their declarations in the lower court (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (Bank of America, N.A.): [Not applicable or not found]
• Defendants-Appellants (Jerome T. Roybal and Amy J. Roybal): Argued that they had preserved their issue for appeal by filing notices in the district court, which included language suggesting that without any objection to their declaration, the Order Confirming Sale and the Special Master’s Report, which contained the Special Master’s Deed, should be considered invalid (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendants properly preserved their issue for appeal by filing notices in the district court that challenged the validity of the Order Confirming Sale and the Special Master’s Report, including the Special Master’s Deed (para 2-5).

Disposition

• The appeal was summarily affirmed, with the court finding that the Defendants did not preserve their issue for appeal according to the procedural requirements (para 6).

Reasons

• LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge and MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge concurring):
  The Court explained that the Defendants did not properly invoke a ruling or decision by the district court on their issue because merely filing notices announcing some intent does not meet the procedural requirements for seeking a ruling or decision. The Court referenced the Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, which require an application for an order to be made by motion, stating the grounds with particularity and setting forth the relief or order sought. The Defendants failed to file such a motion or request an order or ruling on their notices (para 3). Additionally, the Court noted that the Local Rules of the District Court of the First Judicial District require the submission of a package to the judge assigned to the case, indicating that the motion is ripe for decision, which the Defendants also failed to do (para 4). Finally, the Court affirmed that the issue raised on appeal was not first raised in the district court, and therefore, it would not be considered on appeal (para 5-6).