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 Plaintiff, Bank of America, initiated a foreclosure action against the Defendant, Pamela L. Lipper. The district court entered a default judgment against the Defendant and approved a special master’s sale. The Defendant did not appeal these decisions. Later, the Defendant filed a motion to overturn the foreclosure judgment and sale, which the district court granted, voiding the foreclosure judgment and sale based on a lack of jurisdiction (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• District Court, January 22, 2008: Default judgment entered against Defendant.
• District Court, November 2, 2009: Special master’s sale approved.
• District Court, October 1, 2012: Order granting Plaintiff a writ of assistance.
• Court of Appeals, May 16, 2013: Affirmed the district court's order, noting Defendant's failure to timely appeal and waiver of arguments regarding the foreclosure and sale (Bank of America, N.A. v. Lipper, No. 32,469, 2013 WL 4531737).
• District Court, March 7, 2014: Judgment on the mandate stating the decision of the district court stands and the matter is closed.
• District Court, May 1, 2015: Granted Defendant’s motion to overturn the foreclosure judgment and sale, voiding them for lack of jurisdiction.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued for the validity of the foreclosure action and sale, appealing the district court's decision to void the foreclosure judgment and sale based on jurisdictional grounds.
• Defendant: Filed a motion under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA to overturn the foreclosure judgment and sale, successfully arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter its foreclosure judgment and sale approval.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's May 1, 2015 order voiding the foreclosure judgment and sale for lack of jurisdiction was a final order.
• Whether the Defendant's failure to raise the issue of standing before the entry of the foreclosure judgment and order-approved foreclosure sale waived their right to attack the Plaintiff's prudential standing.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals held that the district court's May 1, 2015 order was a final order and that it had jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff’s appeal.
• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s grant of Defendant’s Rule 1-060(B) motion and the determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff’s foreclosure action, holding that the district court’s foreclosure judgment and sale approval stand as effective, final, and unattackable.

Reasons

• Per SUTIN, J. (VIGIL, J., and BOHNHOFF, J., concurring): The Court determined that the district court's order was final because it effectively and practically resolved the jurisdictional issue, allowing for appellate review. The Court relied on precedent from the Supreme Court in Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Johnston, which corrected an earlier determination regarding standing, to conclude that the Defendant waived the right to challenge the Plaintiff's standing by not raising the issue prior to the foreclosure judgment and sale approval. This waiver could not be overcome by a subsequent Rule 1-060(B) motion (paras 3-5).