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 non-party appellant, James Curry, who sought to review the district court's order denying his Rule 1-060(B) NMRA motion related to a foreclosure case. The district court had previously entered a final judgment of foreclosure and an order confirming the judicial sale, which the appellant attempted to challenge or become involved in through various motions or pleadings, all of which were denied.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, August 8, 2019: Final judgment of foreclosure entered (para 3).
• District Court of Bernalillo County, May 20, 2020: Order confirming the judicial sale entered (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that he was improperly designated a non-party by the district court and contended that the stipulated order of foreclosure was deficient because certain parties were not signatories. He also challenged the district court’s determination of the priority of interests and claimed he was improperly denied a right of redemption (paras 3-6).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellant was improperly designated a non-party by the district court.
• Whether the stipulated order of foreclosure was deficient due to lack of certain signatories.
• Whether the district court erred in its determination of the priority of interests.
• Whether the appellant was improperly denied a right of redemption.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the appellant's Rule 1-060(B) motion (paras 3-7).

Disposition

• The district court’s order denying Appellant’s Rule 1-060(B) motion was affirmed (para 8).

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges Megan P. Duffy, J. Miles Hanisee, and Katherine A. Wray, unanimously affirmed the district court's decision. They found that the appellant did not appeal the final orders in a timely manner, thus lacking jurisdiction to review his denied intervention. The appellant's speculation on behalf of another party's actions was deemed insufficient for establishing third-party standing. The court also noted that the appellant failed to establish that a non-signatory's consent was required for the foreclosure order. Furthermore, the court clarified that their review was limited to whether the denial of the Rule 1-060(B) motion was erroneous, not the merits of the underlying judgment. Lastly, the appellant's failure to comply with the requirements for exercising a right of redemption and his inability to present persuasive facts, law, or argument against the proposed disposition of his Rule 1-060(B) motion led to the affirmation of the district court's order (paras 3-8).