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 defendant, Matthew J. Fichera, who appealed against a default foreclosure judgment on his property. The foreclosure judgment was initially filed, and the defendant later filed a motion to set aside this judgment, alleging mistake and/or new evidence related to his equity in the property.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the default foreclosure judgment should be set aside due to mistake, lack of notice, excusable neglect, and newly discovered evidence regarding his equity in the property.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the defendant's motion to set aside the default foreclosure judgment based on claims of mistake, lack of notice, excusable neglect, and newly discovered evidence.
• Whether the one-month redemption period is contractually permissible and if it was too short in this case.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment denying the defendant's motion to set aside the default foreclosure judgment.

Reasons

• Per Hanisee, C.J., with Bogardus and Ives, JJ., concurring: The Court of Appeals found that the defendant's motion, which was construed under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA, did not demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, nor did it present newly discovered evidence that could not have been found in time to move for a new trial under Rule 1-059 NMRA (paras 2-3). The court held that the defendant's claims regarding new evidence and mistake involved matters of credibility, which are the sole responsibility of the trier of fact to determine. The court also noted that the legislature has authorized parties to contractually agree to a one-month redemption period, and thus, the defendant did not establish that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion (paras 4-5).