Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,546 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Frick v. Veazey - cited by 45 documents
Decision Content
BANK OF NEW YORK V. TRUJILLO
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.
BANK OF NEW YORK, as
Trustee for the
CertificateHolders of the
CWABS 2005-1,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GREG M. TRUJILLO, a/k/a
GREGORY M. TRUJILLO,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF
WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS;
TAXATION AND REVENUE
DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF
NEW MEXICO; and UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA (IRS),
Defendants.
NO. A-1-CA-37158
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
September 4, 2018
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY, Raymond Z. Ortiz, District Judge
COUNSEL
Doherty & Silva, LLC, Lucinda R. Silva, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee
The Law Offie of Erika E. Anderson, Erika Anderson, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge. WE CONCUR: LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VIGIL, Judge.
{1} Defendant Greg M. Trujillo has appealed from the district court’s order denying his timely [RP 196, 208] motion to reconsider and denying his motions for an extension of time and to stay the judgment. Unpersuaded that Defendant established error in the district court’s rulings, we issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm. Plaintiff Bank of New York has responded to our notice with a memorandum in support. Defendant has not responded to our notice and the time for doing so has expired. See Rule 12-210(D)(2) NMRA (“The parties shall have twenty (20) days from the date of service of the notice of proposed disposition to file and serve a memorandum in opposition.”). The “[f]ailure to file a memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance of the disposition proposed in the calendar notice.” Frick v. Veazey, 1993-NMCA-119, ¶ 2, 116 N.M. 246, 861 P.2d 287.
{2} For the reasons set forth in our notice, we affirm the district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to reconsider and denying his motions for extension of time and to stay the judgment.
{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
WE CONCUR:
LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge
M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge