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

• Defendant-Appellant Peter G. Wilson, alongside Defendant Gurudarshan K. Wilson, sought to vacate a judgment related to a case involving BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP. The case reached the Court of Appeals following a summary judgment entered by the district court, which had terminated active litigation. The Wilsons' motion to vacate was filed after the mandate had been issued by the Court of Appeals, dismissing their untimely appeal from the district court's final order.

Procedural History

• District Court of Rio Arriba County, September 17, 2014: Final order entered against the Wilsons.
• Court of Appeals of New Mexico, December 2016: Dismissed the Wilsons’ untimely appeal.
• District Court of Rio Arriba County: Entered judgment on mandate, date unspecified (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Peter G. Wilson): Argued that the motion to vacate was not a Rule 1-060(B) NMRA motion but a Rule 1-012(H)(2) NMRA motion, which should allow the court to address the motion (para 3).
• Appellee (BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Wilsons' motion to vacate the judgment, filed after the mandate had issued from the Court of Appeals, was timely and permissible under Rule 1-012(H)(2) NMRA.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction (para 6).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge concurring): The court found that the Wilsons' motion to vacate the judgment was untimely because it was filed after the expiration of the time for appeal and after the mandate had been issued, dismissing their untimely appeal. The court clarified that Rule 1-012(H)(2) NMRA applies to issues of prudential standing and does not permit waiver of standing after the completion of a trial on the merits or at any point in active litigation. Since summary and default judgments preclude trial, the entry of the final summary judgment marked the end of active litigation, making the motion to vacate untimely. The court also noted that the specific rule under which the motion to vacate was filed (Rule 1-012(H)(2) versus Rule 1-060(B)) was irrelevant because the motion was not filed prior to the termination of active litigation. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion (paras 2-5).