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 unsuccessful post-judgment attempt by Siete Valles Firemen’s Association (“Siete Valles”) to intervene and set aside a judgment in an action to quiet title initiated in July 2014. The district court entered judgment on February 14, 2017. Siete Valles sought to intervene as a matter of right and to set aside the district court’s judgment on May 9, 2017, under Rule 1-060(B)(3), (6) NMRA. The district court denied the motion as untimely (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Siete Valles: Argued that the district court erred in determining that it was properly served by publication, thus being a party in the proceeding and bound by the February 14, 2017 judgment. Siete Valles also conceded that the district court did not err in holding that its motion to intervene was untimely (paras 3-4).
• County of Taos: Argued that Siete Valles abandoned the sole issue eligible for appellate review by conceding that the district court did not err in denying its motion to intervene as untimely (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying Siete Valles' motion to intervene and set aside judgment as untimely (para 1).
• Whether Siete Valles was properly served by publication and thus bound by the February 14, 2017 judgment (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying Siete Valles' motion to intervene and set aside judgment as untimely (para 8).

Reasons

• Per B. ZAMORA, J. (with LINDA M. VANZI, J., and KRISTINA BOGARDUS, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals held that intervention is a process allowing a person to become a party in an action between other persons, subject to the timeliness of the application and the necessity to preserve rights not otherwise protected. The Court found that Siete Valles had actual notice of the lawsuit through publication and its relationship with Taos County, and had knowledge of the action throughout its pendency but failed to timely move to intervene. The Court also noted that Siete Valles expressly conceded the district court's finding of untimeliness, which is a threshold question for intervention. The Court concluded that Siete Valles' arguments on appeal were not appropriate for determination as they either misunderstood the proceedings below or attempted to circumvent the finality of the district court's judgment. The Court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to intervene and set aside judgment as untimely, emphasizing the importance of timeliness in intervention requests and the binding nature of unchallenged findings (paras 2-8).