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

• Citicorp Trust Bank FSB (Citicorp) initiated a foreclosure action which was dismissed by the district court. The dismissal was based on the grounds of Citicorp's delayed actions, including loss mitigation efforts that commenced two years after filing the complaint and taking almost three years to transfer the file to a new lender.

Procedural History

• District Court of Otero County, James Waylon Counts, District Judge: Dismissed the foreclosure action with prejudice under Rule 1-041(E)(1) NMRA.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (Citicorp): Argued against the proposed disposition to affirm the district court's decision, contending that such a decision would deter mortgagees and loan servicers from attempting to keep borrowers in their homes following a default due to fears of being perceived as failing to prosecute foreclosure actions.
• Defendants-Appellees (Connie Gallardo and Jimmy D. Gallardo): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether Citicorp's loss mitigation efforts, initiated two years after filing the complaint, constituted timely action under Rule 1-041(E)(1).
• Whether taking almost three years to transfer the file to a new lender was an unreasonable delay and if Citicorp took sufficient action to bring the case to trial during that time.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the foreclosure action with prejudice.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Timothy L. Garcia, with Judges M. Monica Zamora and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, was not persuaded by Citicorp's arguments against the proposed disposition to affirm the district court's decision. The court concluded that Citicorp's loss mitigation efforts, which did not commence until two years after the complaint was filed, did not constitute timely action under Rule 1-041(E)(1) (para 2). Furthermore, the court agreed with the district court's conclusion that taking almost three years to transfer the file to a new lender represented an unreasonable delay, and Citicorp failed to take recognized actions to bring the case to trial during this period (para 3). Citicorp's motion to substitute parties, filed before the motion to dismiss, was not considered a sufficient action to avoid dismissal for lack of prosecution. The court affirmed the district court's decision for these reasons and those stated in the second calendar notice (para 4).