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, The Bank of New York Mellon, acting as Trustee for First Horizon Alternative Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-FA7, filed a foreclosure complaint against the Defendant, Alma A. Saul. The district court dismissed the foreclosure action, and the Plaintiff filed a second motion to reconsider this dismissal after the first motion to reconsider was denied. The Plaintiff's appeal concerns the denial of this second motion to reconsider the dismissal of its foreclosure complaint.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, October 30, 2017: Foreclosure action dismissed.
• District Court of Bernalillo County, February 11, 2020: First motion to reconsider the dismissal denied.
• District Court of Bernalillo County, March 24, 2020: Second motion to reconsider the denial of the first motion to reconsider was denied.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the district court improperly ruled that the statute of limitations had run on the Plaintiff’s complaint, relying on precedent regarding the tolling and applicable time for the running of the limitations period in cases involving an installment contract. Also argued that an unpublished opinion expanded the precedent in a way that provided a new legal argument not available at the time of the first motion to reconsider.
• Defendant-Appellee: Agreed with the proposed disposition to affirm the district court's order denying the Plaintiff's second motion to reconsider. Requested damages based on malicious prosecution, although no counterclaim was filed below.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in ruling that the statute of limitations had run on the Plaintiff’s foreclosure complaint.
• Whether the Plaintiff could rely on an unpublished opinion to argue for a practical remedy that was allegedly unavailable at the time of the first motion to reconsider.
• Whether exceptional circumstances exist that warrant setting aside the judgment under Rule 1-060(B)(6).

Disposition

• The district court's order denying Plaintiff’s second motion to reconsider the dismissal of its foreclosure complaint was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Megan P. Duffy writing the opinion, concurred by Judges Kristina Bogardus and Jacqueline R. Medina, found that successive motions to reconsider do not extend the time for appealing the underlying judgment and cannot be used to appeal the underlying judgment for simple legal error. The Plaintiff's reliance on LSF9 Master Participation Trust v. Sanchez and the subsequent unpublished opinion, Moreno v. Bank of America, was misplaced as Moreno did not create new law but simply applied Sanchez. The Court also found unpersuasive the Plaintiff's argument that exceptional circumstances warranted setting aside the judgment under Rule 1-060(B)(6), as it was predicated on an erroneous claim that Moreno expanded Sanchez in a significant way (paras 1-7).