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 district court foreclosure judgment against Defendant Carol Allen. The Plaintiff-Appellees are RBS Citizens, N.A., and Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-F, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee. The Defendant appealed the judgment.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, November 29, 2018: Foreclosure judgment filed against Defendant Carol Allen.
• District Court of Santa Fe County, March 15, 2019: Order denying Defendant's motion to set aside the judgment.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the appeal should not be limited to the grounds listed in Rule 1-060(B) NMRA and claimed that the Plaintiff lacked standing to enforce the note. Additionally, argued that the district court erred in excluding her proffered expert, Dr. James M. Kelley.
• Plaintiff-Appellee Banc of America Funding: Filed a memorandum in support of the district court's decision, opposing the Defendant's arguments.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's appeal should be limited to the grounds listed in Rule 1-060(B) NMRA.
• Whether the Plaintiff lacked standing to enforce the note, making the judgment voidable under Rule 1-060(B)(4).
• Whether the district court erred in excluding the Defendant's proffered expert, Dr. James M. Kelley.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's foreclosure judgment against Defendant Carol Allen.

Reasons

• Per Hanisee, C.J., with Medina, J., and Duffy, J., concurring:
  The Court found that the Defendant's motion challenging the district court's foreclosure judgment was filed outside the allowed time for filing a timely motion to reconsider or a notice of appeal, thus limiting the appellate review to Rule 1-060(B) grounds (para 2).
  The Court concluded that a judgment in a foreclosure case is not voidable under Rule 1-060(B) due to lack of prudential standing, as established by the Supreme Court in Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Johnston (para 3).
  The Court determined that the Defendant did not establish that any error regarding the exclusion of her proffered expert would have satisfied a ground for setting aside the judgment under Rule 1-060(B) (para 4).
  The Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant's motion to set aside the judgment, as neither of the issues raised by the Defendant triggered the catch-all ground set forth in Rule 1-060(B)(6) (para 4).