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

• Deutsche Bank initiated a foreclosure action in June 2013 against a property in Doña Ana County, New Mexico, due to a mortgage executed by a borrower and recorded in 2005, 2008, and 2010. The State of New Mexico had a lien on the property for delinquent real property taxes as of January 1, 2011, which Deutsche Bank was unaware of and thus did not name the State in the foreclosure action. In June 2015, the State sold the property to the Garcias at a tax sale. A default judgment and order for foreclosure sale was entered in September 2015, and the foreclosure sale was completed in February 2016, with Deutsche Bank acquiring the property. The Garcias did not record their deed until August 2016 and later sought to set aside the judgment and order for foreclosure sale (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Movants-Appellants (the Garcias): Argued that the judgment was void because Deutsche Bank failed to join the State as a necessary and indispensable party under Rule 1-019(A) NMRA, due to the State's interest in the property as a tax lienholder (para 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (Deutsche Bank): The summary does not explicitly detail Deutsche Bank's arguments in response to the Garcias' motion to set aside the judgment.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Garcias’ Rule 1-060(B) motion to set aside the judgment and order for foreclosure sale on the grounds that the State was not a necessary and indispensable party to the foreclosure action (para 5).

Disposition

• The district court's denial of the Garcias' motion to set aside the judgment and order for foreclosure sale was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, with Judges Jacqueline R. Medina and Megan P. Duffy concurring, held that the district court did not err in concluding the State was not a necessary and indispensable party to the foreclosure action. The court reasoned that the State's tax lien was a super lien, paramount to any other interest, including Deutsche Bank's, and thus the foreclosure action did not impair the State's ability to protect its interest. Consequently, the absence of the State from the foreclosure proceedings did not render the judgment void under Rule 1-060(B)(4). The Garcias' failure to establish the State as a necessary and indispensable party under Rule 1-019(A)(2)(a) and the district court's reasoned basis for its conclusion were key factors in affirming the denial of the motion. Additional arguments regarding the tax sale's compliance with statutory and due process requirements, the superiority of parties' interests in the property, and the effect of the district court's order on a quiet title action were deemed beyond the scope of the appeal and left for resolution in the district court (paras 6-14).