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

• Mukhtiar Khalsa sought to intervene in a case after a default judgment was issued in favor of BOKF, N.A., against Roy A. Metzgar, Yvonne M. Metzgar, and Equifirst Corporation. The case involved a foreclosure on a property. Khalsa's motion to intervene was denied by the district court.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Putative Intervenor-Appellant: Argued that the district court improperly denied his motion to intervene and contended that the Plaintiff lacked standing to foreclose upon the subject property (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying Khalsa's motion to intervene.
• Whether the Plaintiff had standing to foreclose upon the subject property.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying Khalsa's motion to intervene.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, with MICHAEL E. VIGIL and STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judges concurring:
  The Court found that Khalsa's argument, based on the Plaintiff's failure to respond to his motion to intervene, did not provide a basis for granting the motion. The Court referenced Rule 1-007.1(D) NMRA, which allows the court to rule with or without a hearing if a party fails to file a response within the prescribed time period. Thus, the lack of response from the Plaintiff to Khalsa's motion did not automatically warrant granting the motion to intervene (para 3).
  The Court also addressed Khalsa's standing to challenge the foreclosure judgment, implying that Khalsa lacked the standing to contest the merits of the foreclosure (para 2).