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

• Century Bank filed a complaint to foreclose a mortgage against Praxis Architects, Inc., among others, concerning a piece of real property in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Praxis had filed a mechanic's lien on the property and sought a declaratory judgment that its lien had priority over Century's mortgage lien. The dispute centered on whether Praxis's construction activities, which commenced before the execution of Century's mortgage lien, granted Praxis's lien priority over Century's mortgage lien (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Century Bank v. Artyard Ltd. P’ship, No. 31,939, mem. op. at 5 (N.M. Ct. App. May 22, 2012) (non-precedential): The Court of Appeals dismissed Praxis's initial appeal for lack of a final judgment.
• District Court, September 8, 2011: Granted summary judgment in favor of Century, dismissing Praxis’s counterclaim and ordering Praxis to cancel its lien of record.
• District Court, January 23, 2013: Entered a stipulated judgment resolving all claims between Century and four ancillary defendants, foreclosing Century’s mortgage.
• District Court, April 19, 2013: Approved a special master’s sale of the property.
• District Court, June 13, 2013: Entered a stipulated judgment dismissing Praxis’s cross-claims against three of the ancillary defendants.

Parties' Submissions

• Century Bank: Argued that there were no issues of material fact regarding the priority of Century’s mortgage lien over Praxis’s lien, asserting that Century’s mortgage is a first and prior lien because it was recorded before any work commenced on the property (para 3).
• Praxis Architects, Inc.: Contended that disputed material facts existed regarding whether construction activities constituting the commencement of work by Praxis were performed prior to the execution of Century’s mortgage lien. Praxis asserted that its lien had priority over Century’s mortgage lien because Praxis commenced work on the property before Century recorded the mortgage and because Century had actual knowledge of the work performed prior to the execution of the mortgage (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court’s summary judgment ruling that Century Bank’s mortgage lien had priority over Praxis Architects, Inc.'s mechanic’s lien on the property was correct.
• Whether the orders issued by the district court on January 23, 2013, and April 19, 2013, were final orders from which Praxis must have appealed within thirty days.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed Praxis’s appeal as untimely pursuant to Section 39-3-2 and Rule 12-201(A)(2) (para 12).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, with JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, and RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge concurring, determined that Praxis failed to timely appeal its claims against Century, choosing instead to postpone an appeal until after Century’s involvement in the case had been concluded for nearly three months. The court found that the orders issued on January 23, 2013, and April 19, 2013, were final orders as to Century, and Praxis did not appeal within the required thirty days, thus divesting the Court of Appeals of its power of jurisdiction. The court also declined Praxis's request to exercise discretion to review the appeal, noting that Praxis had previously sought a conclusion that the district court’s order was non-final and prevailed, indicating that Praxis was aware that the order granting summary judgment was non-final and would presumably become final as to Century in the ordinary course of the ensuing litigation on remand (paras 7-11).