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 Plaintiff, Karen M. Kline, self-represented, sought to challenge a foreclosure judgment entered against her in November 2017. The Plaintiff initiated a new action on March 25, 2019, attempting to relitigate the previously decided foreclosure judgment (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, November 2017: Foreclosure judgment entered against Plaintiff (para 2).
• Court of Appeals of the State of New Mexico, September 2018: Affirmed the district court foreclosure judgment (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued against the district court's dismissal of her complaint, challenging the application of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and the statute of limitations (para 1).
• Defendants (Wells Fargo Bank, NA and Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC): Filed motions to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint, asserting that the issues were fully and fairly litigated in the prior case and that the Plaintiff's claims were barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, and did not meet the statute of limitations requirements (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to bar the Plaintiff's complaint.
• Whether the Plaintiff's claims satisfy the statute of limitations (para 2).
• Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to relief under Rule 1-059 NMRA or Rule 1-060(B) NMRA (para 5).
• Whether the district court should have made accommodations for the Plaintiff's claimed disabilities (para 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice (para 7).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judges Jennifer L. Attrep, Kristina Bogardus, and Megan P. Duffy concurring, found that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel barred the Plaintiff's complaint as it attempted to relitigate the same claims and issues from the prior foreclosure action. The Court also determined that the Plaintiff's claims did not satisfy the statute of limitations, as they related to the filing of the prior foreclosure lawsuit in 2008. The Court was not persuaded that the Plaintiff was entitled to relief under Rule 1-059 NMRA or Rule 1-060(B) NMRA, noting any alleged fraud was either a challenge to the accuracy of legal argument of opposing counsel or a claim of deficient counsel in the underlying action. Additionally, the Court found the Plaintiff's request to amend the complaint after judgment was untimely and that the record was insufficient to support the claim of error regarding accommodations for claimed disabilities. The Court concluded that even if accommodations were made, it would not have changed the outcome on the issues of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and statute of limitations (paras 3-6).