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 mortgage foreclosure dispute between Rabo Agrifinance, LLC (Plaintiff) and various defendants, primarily members or entities associated with the Veigel family (Defendants). The dispute centers around a property subject to foreclosure, with the Plaintiff seeking to enforce a lien interest and the Defendants contesting this enforcement through various legal motions and appeals. The controversy extended to the validity of special warranty deeds conveyed to Steve Veigel on the day of the foreclosure sale, which the Plaintiff sought to have declared null and void.

Procedural History

• Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Terra XXI, Ltd., 2012-NMCA-038, ¶ 2, 274 P.3d 127: Affirmed summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff, dismissing Defendants' counterclaims.
• Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Terra XXI, Ltd., 2014-NMCA-106, ¶ 2, 336 P.3d 972: Held Plaintiff had a 100% lien interest in the subject property.
• Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Terra XXI, Ltd., No. 34,757, mem. op. ¶¶ 1, 2 (N.M. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2015): Denied Defendants' second Rule 1-060(B) motion based on the primary fund doctrine.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued for the enforcement of a 100% lien interest on the subject property, the nullification of special warranty deeds conveyed to Steve Veigel, and the award of a deficiency judgment and supersedeas bonds.
• Defendants: Contested the foreclosure, arguing against the dismissal for lack of prosecution, the application of res judicata to Texas judgments, jurisdictional issues, violation of federal borrowers' rights, and the nullification of deeds conveyed to Steve Veigel.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of prosecution and refusing reinstatement for good cause.
• Whether the district court acted without jurisdiction during pending appeals and in contravention of the bankruptcy court’s discharge.
• Whether the district court properly nullified the May 2015 Deeds and awarded supersedeas bonds to Plaintiff.

Disposition

• The district court's decision to deny Defendants' motions for reinstatement and to nullify the May 2015 Deeds was affirmed, except as it pertained to certain unencumbered property, which was remanded for further proceedings.

Reasons

• Per HANISEE, Chief Judge (BOGARDUS and IVES, JJ., concurring):
  The district court properly dismissed Defendants' motions as improper, given that Steve Veigel, a non-party, had no standing to file motions, especially on behalf of corporations and other legal entities (para 9).
  The district court retained jurisdiction to act on matters of supersedeas and stay during the pendency of an appeal, thus its actions regarding the foreclosure sale and supersedeas bonds were within its jurisdiction (paras 12-13).
  The nullification of the May 2015 Deeds was appropriate except for the unencumbered property, which was not part of the foreclosure action. The court remanded the nullification only as it pertains to this unencumbered property (paras 16-17).
  The award of supersedeas bonds to Plaintiff was proper, as the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the bond amounts to maintain the status quo during the appeal (paras 20-24).