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 an appeal from a decision denying a motion to set aside a default judgment related to a mortgage pass-through certificates trust. The Defendants filed a motion under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA, which was denied by the district court. Subsequently, Defendants filed a supplemental brief challenging the court's subject matter jurisdiction, which was not addressed by the district court before the appeal was filed (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (U.S. Bank N.A. as Trustee): Argued that the district court's opinion and order fully addressed all issues and arguments previously presented and that the Defendants' late submission did not introduce new arguments that were not already considered by the court (para 4).
• Appellants (Jose Rivas, Rosario Rivas, and Yrenia Rivas): Filed a motion to set aside a default judgment under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA and later submitted a supplemental brief challenging the court's subject matter jurisdiction to vacate approved plats, which included arguments and evidence regarding the City of Albuquerque’s position (paras 1-3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's denial of Defendants' motion to set aside a default judgment was appropriate.
• Whether the Defendants' late submission challenging the court's subject matter jurisdiction should be considered as a motion for reconsideration and thus render the appeal premature (paras 3-4).

Disposition

• The appeal was summarily dismissed due to the appeal being considered premature, as the district court had not yet addressed the Defendants' supplemental filing or the Plaintiff's motion to strike it (para 5).

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin (Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, and J. Miles Hanisee, Judge, concurring): The court concluded that the appeal was premature because the district court had not yet ruled on the Defendants' supplemental brief, which was filed after the district court's opinion and order. The court treated the Defendants' late submission as a motion for reconsideration, noting that until the district court expressly disposes of such a motion, the underlying proceedings are not fully and finally resolved. The court emphasized that it could not engage in a comparative analysis of the merits of the Defendants' twelfth-hour submission against the district court's earlier opinion and order. The decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the procedural posture of the case, specifically the pending status of the Defendants' supplemental filing and the Plaintiff's motion to strike, which left the district court's order not immediately reviewable (paras 3-5).