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

• RealTek, Inc. sought to intervene in a foreclosure action between Javier Campos and U.S. Bank National Association concerning a property. RealTek claimed its interest in the property was superior due to a warranty deed from Campos and argued that U.S. Bank's foreclosure action was time-barred by the statute of limitations.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• RealTek, Inc.: Argued that its interest in the property is superior because U.S. Bank’s foreclosure action was time-barred by the statute of limitations, and alternatively, that the district court erred in denying its motion for permissive intervention (paras 1, 2).
• U.S. Bank National Association: Opposed RealTek's motion to intervene, although specific arguments are not detailed in the decision (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether RealTek, Inc. is entitled to intervene in the foreclosure action on the basis that U.S. Bank’s foreclosure action was time-barred by the statute of limitations.
• Whether the district court erred in denying RealTek’s motion for permissive intervention.

Disposition

• The district court’s denial of RealTek, Inc.’s motion to intervene in the foreclosure action was affirmed.

Reasons

• Henderson, J.: Concluded that RealTek failed to demonstrate that the district court erred in denying the motion to intervene as a matter of right. The district court found RealTek’s interest in the property was limited to its right of redemption, and RealTek did not sufficiently challenge this ruling on appeal. Additionally, RealTek failed to preserve its arguments regarding permissive intervention because it did not sufficiently alert the district court and opposing party to this issue in a timely manner (paras 3-6).
  Duffy, J.: Concurred with the decision to affirm the district court’s order (para 7).
  Bustamante, J.: Specially concurred, noting disagreement with the district court's reliance on Florida cases imposing a timeliness requirement not supported by New Mexico authorities. However, due to insufficient briefing, chose to leave the matter unresolved for future consideration (special concurrence).