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 the appellant, Russell L. Barnes (Defendant), appealing against a default judgment in favor of Unifund CCR Partners (Plaintiff). The core of the dispute revolves around the Defendant's claim that he was not properly served with the summons and complaint, which led to the default judgment against him.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the default judgment was void due to the alleged failure of the Plaintiff to serve the summons and complaint properly. The Defendant supported his claim with his own affidavit and that of a private investigator, both suggesting that proper service was not effected.
• Plaintiff: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to set aside the default judgment due to alleged improper service.
• Whether the Defendant was improperly denied a hearing on his motion to set aside the default judgment.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Defendant's motion to set aside the default judgment under Rule 1-060(B)(6).
• Whether the Defendant is entitled to relief under Rule 1-055(B) NMRA based on the claim of not being properly served with the summons and complaint.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings that denied the Defendant's motion to set aside the default judgment.

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The court found the Defendant's arguments unconvincing and upheld the district court's decision. It was within the district court's prerogative to consider the sworn statement of the process server over the Defendant's affidavit and that of his private investigator, determining that the Defendant was properly served. The court also noted that a hearing on the Defendant's motion was indeed held, during which the Defendant, acting pro se, had the opportunity to present his arguments and evidence. The court highlighted that the Defendant's failure to introduce supporting evidence was not due to any shortcoming by the district court but was attributable to the Defendant himself. Regarding the delay in challenging the judgment, the court agreed with the district court's finding that the Defendant waited an unreasonable amount of time, which does not satisfy the requirement in Rule 1-060(B)(6) that the motion be made "within a reasonable time." Lastly, the court disagreed with the Defendant's assertion that he was entitled to relief under Rule 1-055(B) NMRA, stating that the Defendant did not take any affirmative action to signify to the court an intention to submit to its jurisdiction, thus not qualifying for relief under this rule.