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 dispute over a stipulated judgment, decree of foreclosure, and appointment of a special master, alongside issues regarding a motion for judgment of lien and order of collection, a motion to reopen, and a second emergency motion to postpone sale. The appellant, Maye L. Bernard, contended that she had no notice of the motion for summary judgment due to mail reception issues, claimed the appellee's lien was fraudulent and unsupported by evidence, and argued her lien was valid and should be paid by the estate. Additionally, the appellant raised concerns about new evidence questioning the will of the decedent and difficulties in contacting the special master for the case.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Contended lack of notice for the motion for summary judgment due to mail issues, requested an emergency hearing, argued the appellee's lien was fraudulent and unsupported, claimed her lien was valid and should be prioritized, raised new evidence questioning the decedent's will, and reported difficulties in contacting the special master (paras 2-3).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the appellant's motions including the motion to reconsider and set aside stipulated judgment, decree of foreclosure, and appointment of special master; motion for judgment of lien and order of collection; motion to reopen; and second emergency motion to postpone sale.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the appellant's motions (para 7).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Jennifer L. Attrep, Jacqueline R. Medina, and Zachary A. Ives, found the appellant's arguments unconvincing and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellant failed to demonstrate error by the district court regarding her lack of notice due to mail issues and did not develop her arguments or point out factual or legal errors in the court's notice of proposed disposition. The Court noted that self-represented litigants are bound by the same rules as those with counsel and found no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying the appellant's motions. The appellant did not present new facts, authority, or persuasive arguments to challenge the proposed disposition (paras 1-6).