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 a dispute between U.S. Bank National Association and Andre Rollin concerning a mortgage that led to two foreclosure actions. The first foreclosure action was initiated on July 2, 2008, and concluded with an order for vacating judgment and dismissal of the suit on May 1, 2015. Subsequently, a second foreclosure complaint was filed by the Plaintiff on March 30, 2015, which is the subject of the current appeal (para 1).

Procedural History

• D-117-CV-2008-00298: Order vacating judgment and for dismissal of suit, filed on May 1, 2015.
• District Court of Rio Arriba County, August 1, 2017: Grant of summary and default judgment and order for foreclosure sale in favor of U.S. Bank National Association.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (U.S. Bank National Association): Arguments and evidence presented by the Plaintiff are not detailed in the decision.
• Defendant-Appellant (Andre Rollin): Opposed the Court's notice of proposed disposition but failed to provide adequate authority or argument to establish that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint was in error (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in dismissing the Defendant's complaint.
• Whether the doctrines of claim preclusion or res judicata apply to the case at hand.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary and default judgment and order for foreclosure sale (para 4).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi, Judge Henry M. Bohnhoff, and Judge Daniel J. Gallegos, found that the Defendant, Andre Rollin, did not provide sufficient authority or argument to challenge the district court's dismissal of his complaint effectively. The Court noted that it has no duty to review arguments that are not adequately developed. Furthermore, the Court addressed the Defendant's continued argument regarding the applicability of claim preclusion or res judicata, clarifying that the prior foreclosure action's dismissal without prejudice meant there was no judicial decision on the merits, thus not serving as res judicata for the current case (paras 2-3).