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

• Appellants Peter Wilson and Guru Darshan Wilson, initially pro se litigants, were involved in a foreclosure action initiated by Appellee BAC Home Loans Servicing. The complaint, filed on January 20, 2011, included an unindorsed copy of the note on the Appellants' property. The Appellants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, which was denied by the district court. Subsequently, a motion for summary judgment was filed by the Appellee, attaching an indorsed copy of the note, to which the Appellants did not respond. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellee. The Appellants, after retaining counsel, filed a motion to reconsider the summary judgment, which was eventually denied by the district court (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• District Court, January 20, 2011: Denied Appellants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
• District Court, February 13, 2014: Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment.
• District Court, April 10, 2014: Granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee.
• District Court, September 17, 2014: Denied Appellants' motion to reconsider its grant of summary judgment.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants: Argued lack of standing in their motion to dismiss and sought reconsideration of the summary judgment based on "new controlling law" after retaining counsel.
• Appellee: Filed a motion for summary judgment with an indorsed copy of the note, arguing for the foreclosure action's validity.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying Appellants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
• Whether the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee was proper.
• Whether exceptional circumstances justified entertaining an untimely appeal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal due to the Appellants' failure to comply with the appellate rules governing the time and place to file a notice of appeal (para 8).

Reasons

• JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring): The Court found that the Appellants failed to comply with Rule 12-201(A)(2) NMRA, which requires filing a notice of appeal within thirty days of the district court's entry of its final judgment. The Court considered whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify entertaining the untimely appeal but found none. The Court noted that the Appellants' initial appeal on the issue of standing and the subsequent motion for summary judgment were distinct and that the Appellants had opportunities to clarify the procedural posture of their case. The dismissal of the initial appeal for lack of a final, appealable order and the denial of the motion to reconsider summary judgment were based on procedural grounds, not on the merits of the foreclosure action itself (paras 6-8).