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 second appeal in a foreclosure action where the district court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice, which was inconsistent with the procedural posture of the case and a prior mandate from the Court of Appeals. The Plaintiff is CITIMORTGAGE, INC., and the Defendants are JOHN DAVID GARFIELD and SALLY G. GARFIELD, with John David Garfield appealing pro se. The appeal challenges the district court's jurisdiction following the entry of the dismissal order.

Procedural History

• Citimortgage v. Garfield, No. A-1-CA-35838, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. Jun 5, 2017): The Court affirmed the Plaintiff’s standing to enforce the note and mortgage underlying this suit.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the district court has entered an order nunc pro tunc resolving the issues created by the anomalous dismissal order.
• Defendant-Appellant: Challenged the district court’s jurisdiction to conduct any proceedings following the entry of the dismissal order and argued that an order nunc pro tunc would be inappropriate in the circumstances of this case.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to conduct any proceedings following the entry of an order purporting to dismiss the case with prejudice.
• Whether an order nunc pro tunc is appropriate to correct the record in this case.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order confirming the special master’s sale of the underlying property and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion and calendar notice.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Chief Judge, and MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge concurring): The Court found the district court's dismissal order inconsistent with the procedural posture of the case and the Court of Appeals' prior mandate. Despite remanding the case twice for clarification, the district court failed to enter an order nunc pro tunc as directed, leaving the record with the anomalous dismissal order. The Court concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter a nunc pro tunc order after jurisdiction reverted to the Court of Appeals. The Court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments against the appropriateness of a nunc pro tunc order, noting that such orders are intended to correct the record to reflect what was actually intended and done, not to address issues of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fraud. The reversal was based on the need to correct the procedural irregularities and jurisdictional issues presented in the appeal (paras 1-6).