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 decree of foreclosure entered against Jama Fontaine (Defendant) in December 2012. In May 2017, the Defendant moved for relief from that judgment under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA, which was subsequently denied by the district court (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, December 2012: Decree of foreclosure entered against Jama Fontaine.
• District Court of Bernalillo County, May 2017: Defendant's motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA denied.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the Plaintiff failed to establish its standing both in the original foreclosure proceedings and in the Rule 1-060(B) motion for post-judgment relief (paras 3-4).
• Plaintiff: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff's lack of prudential standing in the foreclosure case renders the final judgment voidable under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA.
• Whether the Defendant's Rule 1-060(B) motion constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the prior judgment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's Rule 1-060(B) motion for post-judgment relief (para 7).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge, JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge concurring):
  The court concluded that the Defendant's challenge to the Plaintiff's standing, raised in the Rule 1-060(B) motion, was not a viable avenue for attacking the foreclosure judgment. This decision was based on the New Mexico Supreme Court's precedent in Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Johnston, which held that a final judgment in an action to enforce a promissory note in a foreclosure case is not voidable under Rule 1-060(B) due to a lack of prudential standing. The court also noted that the Defendant's characterization of her motion as a "direct attack" did not change the outcome, as foreclosure judgments are not subject to collateral attacks in subsequent actions where lack of standing is alleged, citing Phoenix Funding, LLC v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC. The court emphasized adherence to Supreme Court precedent and found no principled basis for a different result in this case (paras 3-7).