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, self-represented, appealing from a district court’s order of foreclosure against him. The Defendant did not raise specific issues for appeal but mentioned seeking alternative forms of relief and promised to keep the Court informed of developments on the matter (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (Bank of New York Mellon): [Not applicable or not found]
• Defendant-Appellant (Roberto M. Vigil): Did not raise any specific issues for appeal but mentioned seeking alternative forms of relief and promised to keep the Court informed of developments on the matter (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant’s appeal, lacking specific issues for review and focusing on seeking alternative forms of relief, demonstrates error in the district court’s order of foreclosure.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals denied any amendment to the docketing statement that the Defendant’s response would require and affirmed the district court’s order of foreclosure (para 8).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, and Judge Shammara H. Henderson, unanimously found that the Defendant did not demonstrate error in his appeal. The Court highlighted several reasons for its decision:
  The Defendant’s notice of appeal and docketing statement did not serve the intended purpose of presenting factual and legal matters for appeal but were treated as placeholders while seeking relief elsewhere, which is not permissible (para 2).
  The Defendant’s response to the Court’s notice was treated as a motion to amend the docketing statement but failed to satisfy the required criteria, including timeliness, clarity of issues, preservation of issues, and demonstration of good cause for not raising the issues initially (paras 3-6).
  The Defendant did not raise viable issues for appeal. His grievances were largely untethered to law or factual assertions about the record and did not identify defenses to foreclosure relevant to his complaints (para 7).
  The Court applied a presumption of correctness to the district court's rulings, placing the burden on the appellant to demonstrate error, which the Defendant failed to do (para 8).