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 Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee for Mastr. Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2004-7, seeking foreclosure against Brenda C. Price, among others. The district court awarded summary judgment to the Plaintiff, incorporating a decree of foreclosure. Brenda C. Price, the Defendant, attempted to appeal the decision, focusing on a motion she filed requesting the district court to overturn its prior award of summary judgment.

Procedural History

• District Court of Taos County, February 14, 2017: Awarded summary judgment to Plaintiff and incorporated a decree of foreclosure.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued for the foreclosure based on the summary judgment awarded by the district court.
• Defendant-Appellant: Filed a motion in May 2017 requesting the district court to overturn its prior award of summary judgment to Plaintiff, characterizing this as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 39-1-1 (1917).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order of February 14, 2017, awarding summary judgment to Plaintiff and incorporating a decree of foreclosure, constituted a final judgment.
• Whether the Defendant's motion for reconsideration filed in May 2017 extended the deadline for filing notice of appeal.

Disposition

• The appeal was summarily dismissed due to the untimely filing of the notice of appeal by the Defendant.

Reasons

• VANZI, Chief Judge, with HANISEE and KIEHNE, Judges concurring, found that the district court’s order constituted a final judgment, making the appeal untimely as it was filed roughly nine months beyond the applicable deadline. The court also determined that the Defendant's motion for reconsideration was untimely and therefore ineffective as a mechanism for extending the time within which to file notice of appeal. The court declined to give the motion broader effect than it was due and disagreed with the Defendant's suggestion that the complexity of identifying final judgments and public interest factors should influence the outcome. The court emphasized adherence to established precedent and the principle that pro se litigants are not entitled to special privileges (paras 1-5).