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 the Defendants, Max Urban and Una Zakas, appealing an order that denied their motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1-060(B)(5) and (6) NMRA. This motion was filed following a summary judgment granted to the Plaintiff, Los Alamos National Bank, which resulted in a decree of foreclosure against the Defendants.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, August 17, 2009: Summary judgment granted to Plaintiff, Los Alamos National Bank, and a decree of foreclosure entered against Defendants.
• Court of Appeals of New Mexico, Case No. 29,905: Affirmed the Summary Judgment Order, with mandate issuing on June 9, 2010.
• District Court of Santa Fe County, May 27, 2011: Denied Defendants' Motion for relief from judgment.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants: Argued that the Court of Appeals should treat a notice of appeal and docketing statement as a petition for writ of certiorari and sought relief from the summary judgment order claiming it was no longer equitable.
• Plaintiff (N/A)

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying Defendants' motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 1-060(B)(5) and (6) NMRA.
• Whether Defendants' failure to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court precludes the district court from revisiting the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the Summary Judgment Order.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying Defendants’ Motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 1-060(B)(5) and (6).

Reasons

• Per WECHSLER, J. (KENNEDY, J., GARCIA, J., concurring):
  The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion and found no error in its denial of Defendants' motion for relief from judgment. The Court noted that Defendants did not rebut the analysis contained in the notice of proposed summary disposition regarding their failure to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was necessary for review of the Court of Appeals' decision. Furthermore, the Court found that Defendants did not make a sufficient showing entitling them to relief under Rule 1-060(B)(5) and (6), as they failed to demonstrate why enforcement of the Summary Judgment Order was no longer equitable or present exceptional circumstances warranting relief. The Defendants' reiteration of arguments previously made to the district court did not convince the Court of Appeals that its proposed disposition was in error.