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 petitioner, a self-represented litigant, appealed the district court's decision which granted the respondent's motion to dismiss his complaint with prejudice. The petitioner had attempted to rescind a note and mortgage transaction consummated on May 7, 2003, and challenged the respondent's right to enforce the note and to foreclose, asserting that the district court had erred in its application of doctrines such as res judicata and collateral estoppel, and in its handling of jurisdictional issues (paras 1-3, 5-8).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Clay Campbell, District Judge: The district court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the petitioner's complaint with prejudice.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by (1) ignoring the rescission of the note and mortgage, (2) not requiring the respondent to prove its right to enforce the note, (3) misapplying doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and (4) incorrectly ruling on jurisdictional issues. The petitioner also contended that his right to rescission was absolute and not subject to judicial review (paras 2-3, 5-7).
• Respondents-Appellees: Successfully moved for the dismissal of the complaint, arguing presumably in favor of the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and against the petitioner's right to rescind the transaction after the statutory period had expired (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in dismissing the petitioner's complaint with prejudice.
• Whether the district court correctly applied the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
• Whether the petitioner's attempted rescission of the note and mortgage was valid and timely.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting the respondent's motion to dismiss and dismissing the complaint with prejudice (para 9).

Reasons

• M. Monica Zamora, Judge, with Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and James J. Wechsler, Judge, concurring, provided the reasoning for the decision. The court found that the petitioner's arguments regarding the district court's alleged errors in applying res judicata, collateral estoppel, and jurisdictional issues were either unsupported by authority or abandoned due to a failure to adequately address the proposed disposition of these issues. The court also concluded that the petitioner's right to rescind the transaction expired three years after the date of consummation, which was on May 7, 2006, rendering the attempted rescission on January 18, 2011, invalid. The court applied the "right for any reason" doctrine to affirm the district court's decision, noting that the petitioner's rescission attempt was outside the statutory period allowed by federal law, specifically 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a), (f) (2012), and supported by precedent in Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank (paras 3-8).