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 Plaintiffs Anthony Jacob and Cornerstone Homes, Inc., who sought to foreclose their judgment lien against Defendants Susan Walker and Mountain Insurance Services, Inc. The dispute centered on whether the statute of limitations for enforcing the judgment began with the original judgment entered on September 9, 2005, or the amended judgment entered on October 17, 2005, which corrected a clerical error in the plaintiff's name.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the statute of limitations should run from the date of the amended judgment (October 17, 2005) because it corrected a substantive error, making the original judgment unenforceable until the correction was made.
• Defendants: Contended that the statute of limitations began with the original judgment (September 9, 2005), asserting that the amendment was merely to correct a typographical error and did not affect the enforceability of the judgment.

Legal Issues

• Whether the statute of limitations for enforcing the judgment lien began with the original judgment entered on September 9, 2005, or the amended judgment entered on October 17, 2005.
• Whether the district court made various other errors during the proceedings that would require reversal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that the statute of limitations began with the original judgment and that the Plaintiffs' claim to foreclose the judgment lien was time-barred.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Ives, J., with Attrep, C.J., and Henderson, J., concurring, held that:
  The amendment to the judgment was governed by Rule 1-060(A) NMRA, intended for correcting clerical mistakes arising from oversight or omission, such as typographical errors. The correction of the plaintiff's name from "Jacobs" to "Jacob" was deemed non-substantive, and thus, the statute of limitations began with the entry of the original judgment on September 9, 2005 (paras 3-9).
  The Court applied the "right for any reason" doctrine, affirming the district court's decision on the basis that the statute of limitations issue was correctly decided, even if the district court's reasoning was not fully clear or relied upon different grounds (para 4).
  The Plaintiffs' additional arguments regarding other alleged errors by the district court were dismissed as they did not pertain to the dispositive issue of when the statute of limitations began. The Court found no basis for reversal on these grounds, noting that even if the district court had erred in the ways claimed by Plaintiffs, such errors had no bearing on the statute of limitations issue (paras 11-12).