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

• Don C. Toland sought to intervene in a legal proceeding involving Wells Fargo Bank and several defendants, including the unknown heirs of Robert Carmignani, the United States of America through the Internal Revenue Service, Lawrence Thomas Carmignani, and the State of New Mexico Department of Taxation and Revenue. Toland's motion to intervene was denied by the district court.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Toland): Argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to intervene, suggesting that the resolution of a separate action between himself and the plaintiff was a prerequisite for his intervention (para 2).
• Plaintiff (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying Toland's motion to intervene due to not seeking to intervene in a timely manner.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny Toland's motion to intervene.

Reasons

• M. Monica Zamora, J. Miles Hanisee, and Emil J. Kiehne, Judges, concurred in the decision. The Court found that Toland did not seek to intervene in a timely manner, noting that the resolution of a related case between Toland and the plaintiff did not preclude him from attempting to intervene in the ongoing case. The Court emphasized that Toland waited more than a year after the resolution of the related case before attempting to intervene, which affected the timeliness of his motion (para 2). Additionally, the Court did not address Toland's issues with the language and case law he claimed were in the notice of proposed summary disposition, as they were not actually part of the Court's notice (para 3). The Court also declined to address the issues Toland wished to raise as a potential intervenor, given the denial of his motion to intervene (para 4). The decision to affirm was based on the lack of persuasive new legal or factual arguments from Toland that could alter the Court's analysis or proposed disposition (para 5).