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 foreclosure sale of the home belonging to David A. Sandoval II and Tabetha M. Sandoval (the Sandovals) by U.S. Bank National Association, not in its individual capacity but solely as Trustee of OWS REMIC Trust 2013-1 without recourse (U.S. Bank). The Sandovals appealed the district court's order denying their motion to set aside the default judgment and vacate the foreclosure sale (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Alan M. Malott, District Judge, denying the Sandovals' Rule 1-060(B)(6) NMRA motion to set aside the default judgment and vacate the foreclosure sale of their home (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants (the Sandovals): Argued that the district court erred by not setting aside the default judgment due to U.S. Bank lacking standing to enforce the note and mortgage. They also presented exceptional circumstances justifying reopening the judgment, including the substitution of a party and substantial amendment of allegations concerning standing without service of the amended complaint on the Sandovals, who were in default (paras 3, 5).
• Appellee (U.S. Bank): Supported the proposed summary affirmance of the district court's decision and responded to the Sandovals' motion to amend the docketing statement, arguing against the Sandovals' claims (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court improperly entered the default judgment by failing to make a sua sponte inquiry into U.S. Bank’s standing, which would have revealed that U.S. Bank did not meet the requirements of the New Mexico Uniform Commercial Code with respect to standing and the right to enforce lost instruments (para 3).
• Whether extraordinary circumstances existed to justify setting aside the default judgment, as required by Rule 1-060(b)(6), given the lack of specific findings regarding U.S. Bank’s authority to enforce the Note and Mortgage, and the absence of evidence that the mortgage was properly assigned to U.S. Bank (para 3).
• Whether the Supreme Court’s holding in Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Johnston, that a challenge to standing is waived if not raised before final judgment, is inapplicable when a Rule 1-060(B)(6) motion is filed within a reasonable time after a default judgment (para 9).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Sandovals' motion to set aside the default judgment and vacate the foreclosure sale. Additionally, the Court of Appeals denied the motion to amend the docketing statement (para 16).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per M. Monica Zamora, with J. Miles Hanisee and Henry M. Bohnhoff concurring, based its decision on the following reasons:
  The Sandovals' arguments in their memorandum in opposition to the notice of proposed disposition were significantly different from those raised in the docketing statement, and they did not demonstrate good cause to amend the docketing statement to include new issues (paras 6-7).
  The Court found that the Sandovals failed to meet their burden on appeal by not pointing to specific errors in fact or law in the notice of proposed disposition and attempting to raise new issues without good cause (para 8).
  The Court declined to reconsider the holding in Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Johnston regarding the waiver of a challenge to standing if not raised before final judgment, as the Sandovals did not address this issue in their memorandum in opposition to the proposed notice of disposition (para 9).
  The Court was not persuaded that the Sandovals demonstrated good cause to amend the docketing statement with the issues raised in Section II of their response to the Court's notice of proposed disposition, thus denying the request (para 15).