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

• James and Laree Pyle were unable to redeem their property after a foreclosure sale because the district court denied their motion to extend the thirty-day redemption period set by their mortgage. The motion was denied on the grounds that it was not filed before the foreclosure judgment was entered (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Denied motion to extend the thirty-day redemption period set by the mortgage because the motion was not filed before the foreclosure judgment was entered (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (James Pyle): Argued that the plain language of NMSA 1978, Section 39-5-19, which requires motions for extensions of redemption periods to be made "before judgment," is contrary to the purpose of the redemption statutes and overly restrictive of the district court’s exercise of equitable powers (paras 4, 7).
• Appellee (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.): Contended that the appellant's argument was not preserved for appeal and implied that the appellant's failure to move for an extension in the litigation he chose to ignore should not be rewarded (paras 4, 10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the requirement that motions for extensions of redemption periods must be made "before judgment" is contrary to the purpose of the redemption statutes and overly restrictive of the district court’s exercise of equitable powers (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s request for an extension of the redemption period (para 13).

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Jonathan B. Sutin, J., concurring): The court held that the phrase "before judgment" in Section 39-5-19 is clear and unambiguous and does not require further construction. The court disagreed with the appellant that this conclusion is contrary to the purpose of the statute, noting that the Legislature set a deadline for a request for an extension of the redemption period does not contravene its intent to provide a reasonable opportunity to redeem. The court also found that the appellant's failure to respond to the complaint and participate in the legal process deprived him of the opportunities it offers, and that the statute does not improperly impinge on the district court’s equitable powers. The court concluded that equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights, and affirmed the district court’s denial of the appellant’s request for an extension of the redemption period (paras 5-12).