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 Defendant's appeal from a district court order that deemed his post-judgment pleadings and notices legally ineffective and implicitly denied his arguments presented in a Rule 1-060(B) NMRA petition (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (ZIA Credit Union): The specific arguments made by the Plaintiff-Appellee are not detailed in the provided text.
• Defendant-Appellant (Gilbert F. Romero): The Defendant-Appellant argued against the district court's ruling on the legal efficacy of his post-judgment pleadings and notices, and sought relief from judgment under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA. He acknowledged the lack of controlling precedent supporting his positions and cited out-of-jurisdiction cases that did not substantiate his legal theories (paras 2-3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant relief from judgment and in finding his post-judgment pleadings and notices to be without legal efficacy.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, ruling that the Defendant's post-judgment pleadings and notices were without legal efficacy and impliedly denying the Defendant's arguments as raised in his Rule 1-060(B) NMRA petition (para 4).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals was not persuaded by the Defendant's memorandum in opposition to the court's notice of proposed disposition, noting that the Defendant failed to point out any specific errors in fact or law. The Defendant's reliance on out-of-jurisdiction cases that did not support his legal theories or the propositions for which they were cited was deemed insufficient. The Court concluded that the Defendant's request for the Court to consider arguments regarding the nature of currency and the economic system was outside its scope of authority, affirming the district court's ruling based on the reasons stated in their calendar notice and the lack of convincing legal authority or precedent to support the Defendant's positions (paras 2-4).