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 foreclosure action by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. against Steve Alverson, the homeowner. Alverson, representing himself, appealed from the district court's final order which denied his motion to dismiss and motion to vacate a foreclosure judgment against him.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, December 2, 2016: Final order denying the homeowner's motion to dismiss and motion to vacate the foreclosure judgment (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.): Argued that the foreclosure judgment was valid and that the homeowner's appeal was not timely, thus limiting the review to the denial of the homeowner's Rule 1-060(B) motion (paras 2-3).
• Defendant-Appellant (Steve Alverson): Contended that Wells Fargo did not have standing to foreclose on his property and argued for the vacation of the judgment on the basis of due process violations and under Rule 1-060(B)(6) for "any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment" (paras 2, 4-5, 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether Wells Fargo had standing to foreclose on the homeowner's property.
• Whether the homeowner was entitled to relief from the foreclosure judgment under Rule 1-060(B) due to alleged due process violations and for "any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment."

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's final order denying the homeowner's motion to dismiss and motion to vacate the foreclosure judgment (para 9).

Reasons

• SUTIN, Judge (with MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge and JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge concurring):
  The court limited its review to the denial of the homeowner's Rule 1-060(B) motion because the homeowner did not file a timely notice of appeal from the original foreclosure judgment. The court concluded that the prudential standing requirement was waived by the homeowner's failure to timely appeal, and standing could not be the basis for a collateral attack under Rule 1-060(B) (paras 2-3).
  Regarding the homeowner's assertion under Rule 1-060(B)(6), the court found that the homeowner did not demonstrate entitlement to relief, as appellate courts presume the correctness of the district court's decision unless clearly demonstrated otherwise by the appellant (para 4).
  On the due process claim, the court reviewed the district court's order for an abuse of discretion and found no such abuse. The court noted that Wells Fargo had served notice of all pleadings to the homeowner's attorney of record until her withdrawal was not officially ordered, and thereafter directly to the homeowner at his indicated address. The homeowner's claim of not receiving correspondence was not supported by the record (paras 5-8).