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 foreclosure action against Appellant Cheryl L. Maes by three lienholders. The dispute arose from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the lienholders, which Maes appealed, raising multiple issues related to the proceedings and judgments below.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court's grant of summary judgment was based on insufficient evidence, raised procedural issues regarding the timeliness and service of cross- and counterclaims by Zocalo Association, Inc., questioned the standing and notice requirements of Zocalo and Santa Fe Community Housing Trust (SFCHT), and challenged the district court's modification of its order granting summary judgment among other issues.
• Appellee Zocalo Association, Inc.: [Not applicable or not found]
• Appellee Santa Fe Community Housing Trust: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's grant of summary judgment was supported by sufficient evidence.
• Whether Zocalo Association, Inc.'s cross- and counterclaims were filed late without leave of court.
• Whether service was improper for Zocalo's cross-claims.
• Whether Zocalo and SFCHT had standing.
• Whether Zocalo and SFCHT failed to give proper notice of default or an opportunity to cure.
• Whether SFCHT's claims were pleaded with sufficient specificity.
• Whether the district court erred in modifying its order granting summary judgment in favor of Matrix Financial.
• Whether the district court erred by not specifying the legal basis for setting aside a final judgment under Rule 1-060 NMRA.
• Whether the district court's grant of attorney fees was unreasonable.
• Whether the district court should have denied SFCHT's motion to compel Matrix to accept the payoff of the judgment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's January 2, 2018, January 19, 2018, and April 25, 2018 orders.

Reasons

• DUFFY, Judge, with KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge, and JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge concurring: The Court found that the district court had the authority under Rule 1-060 to modify its judgment on its own motion and that Maes did not meet her burden to show that the district court abused its discretion in modifying the judgment (para 3). The Court also concluded that Maes did not demonstrate any error on the part of the district court requiring reversal, as she failed to provide well-supported and clear arguments for her assertions of error (para 4).