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 where the Defendants appealed from the denial of a motion to set aside a judgment under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA. The Defendants sought to engage in discovery to determine if their loan was procured by fraud.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants-Appellants: Argued that they should have been granted relief from the judgment to engage in discovery to determine whether their loan was procured by fraud. They contended that their allegations of fraud and request for discovery were timely as these matters were mentioned at the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (paras 3-4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendants should have been granted relief from the judgment under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA to engage in discovery regarding the procurement of their loan by fraud.
• Whether the Defendants' allegations of fraud and request for discovery were timely and sufficient to prevent the award of summary judgment to the Plaintiff.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the Defendants' Rule 1-060(B) motion to set aside the judgment in the foreclosure action (para 6).

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge and RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the Defendants' failure to assert fraud as an affirmative defense in a timely manner was fatal to their case. The Court observed that the materials relied upon by the Defendants to support their allegations of fraud were available well before the original award of summary judgment, and their failure to advance the defense in a timely fashion precluded relief (para 3). Furthermore, the Court noted that the Defendants neither propounded discovery nor submitted an affidavit demonstrating how additional time for discovery would enable them to rebut the Plaintiff's showing, as required by Rule 1-056(F) NMRA. The Court disagreed with the Defendants' suggestion that comments made at the summary judgment hearing could substitute for compliance with procedural rules (para 4). Lastly, the Court concluded that the Defendants were not entitled to relief under Rule 1-060(B) as a matter of equity because they failed to avail themselves of standard discovery practices in a timely and appropriate manner (para 5).