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 judicial sale following a decree of foreclosure entered against Patrick J. Archuleta (Defendant) in December 2014. The Defendant moved for relief from the judgment, which was denied, leading to the sale of the subject property. The Defendant's objections to the sale were also rejected by the district court.

Procedural History

• December 2014: A decree of foreclosure was entered against the Defendant ([RP 123]).
• [Not applicable or not found]: The district court denied Defendant's motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 1-060(B) NMRA ([RP 263-69, 379-81]).
• [Not applicable or not found]: Defendant's previous appeal challenging Plaintiff's standing was rejected ([RP 388-96, 401-15]).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the Plaintiff had failed to establish its standing to foreclose, both in the initial proceedings and in the current appeal ([DS 19-22; MIO 1-11]).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff had established its standing to foreclose.
• Whether the doctrine of "law of the case" precludes the Defendant from challenging the Plaintiff's standing in the instant appeal.

Disposition

• The appeal from the order confirming a judicial sale was affirmed.

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, along with Judges Linda M. Vanzi and Megan P. Duffy concurring, found that the Defendant's attempt to challenge the Plaintiff's standing was foreclosed by the doctrine of "law of the case." The court observed that the legal questions resolved in the previous appeal would not be determined differently in a subsequent appeal. The Defendant's memorandum in opposition failed to address this consideration, leading the court to adhere to its initial assessment and affirm the order confirming the judicial sale ([paras 1-4]).