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 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, initiating a foreclosure action against Marcelina Y. Martinez, among other defendants. Marcelina Martinez, representing herself, appealed against the district court's judgment for foreclosure and its denial of her motion for reconsideration.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Santa Fe County, David K. Thomson, District Judge, May 7, 2019.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.): [Not applicable or not found]
• Defendant-Appellant (Marcelina Martinez): Argued that the district court judge exceeded his authority by issuing orders based on a hearing conducted by a previous judge, erred in granting summary judgment despite disputes over material facts, and erred in presuming standing despite several issues indicating a lack thereof.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court judge acted outside his authority by issuing orders based on a hearing conducted by a previous judge.
• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment despite numerous material fact disputes.
• Whether the district court erred in presuming standing despite several issues indicating a lack thereof.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s in rem judgment, decree of foreclosure, and order of sale and denial of the motion for reconsideration.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge and BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Judge concurring): The Court of Appeals remained unpersuaded by the Defendant's memorandum in opposition, finding no persuasive facts, law, or argument to overturn the proposed summary affirmance. The Defendant's repetition of earlier arguments did not fulfill the requirement to specifically point out errors of law and fact. Additionally, the Court deemed the issue regarding the district court's failure to fully adjudicate the motion to vacate orders prior to ruling on subsequent motions as abandoned, due to the Defendant's failure to respond to the proposed disposition of that issue (paras 1-3).