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

• In 2006, the defendant obtained a loan secured by a mortgage on a property in Rio Rancho, New Mexico. After failing to make payments post-September 1, 2010, the plaintiff filed a complaint for foreclosure in October 2011. The defendant was served but did not answer the complaint, leading to a default judgment and decree of foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff in May 2012. In August 2012, the defendant's son, not a party to the action nor an attorney, filed a motion for relief from the default judgment on behalf of the defendant (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County, May 2012: Default judgment and decree of foreclosure entered in favor of the plaintiff (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the motion for relief from default judgment should be stricken because it was filed by someone not a party to the foreclosure action (para 3).
• Defendant-Appellant: Through her son, argued for relief from the default judgment, claiming an "assignment of litigation rights" and asserting he was the "real party in interest" (paras 5-6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the motion for relief from default judgment on the ground that the motion was filed by someone not a party to the case (para 7).
• Whether the appellant abandoned the issue on appeal by failing to challenge the district court's basis for denial in her brief in chief (para 8).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the motion for relief from default judgment on the basis that the individual filing the motion was not a party to the case (para 13).

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Michael D. Bustamante and Roderick T. Kennedy concurring, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for relief from default judgment solely on the basis that the individual filing the motion was not a party to the case. The appellant's failure to address this basis in her brief in chief was deemed an abandonment of the issue on appeal. Consequently, the appellant failed to demonstrate that reversal was required, leading the court to affirm the district court's order without addressing the merits of the motion for relief from default judgment (paras 9-13).