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 where the Plaintiff-Appellee, First Alamogordo Bancorp of Nevada, Inc., d/b/a First National Bank, sought and obtained a Summary Judgment against the Defendant-Appellant, Steven E. Williams, and other defendants, leading to the sale of two commercial properties owned by two limited liability companies (LLCs) of which the Appellant was a member. The Appellant filed a "Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Sale" under Rule 1-060(B), seeking to overturn the district court's order granting Summary Judgment in favor of the Appellee and the subsequent orders approving the sale of the properties.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court's order granting Summary Judgment and the subsequent orders approving the sale of properties should be set aside under Rule 1-060(B) due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct of an adverse party, the judgment being void, and any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
• Appellee: Contended that the appeal should be dismissed as the district court's denial of the Appellant's Rule 1-060(B) Motion was not a final and appealable order, thereby depriving the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's denial of Appellant's Rule 1-060(B) Motion was a final appealable order.
• Whether the Appellant demonstrated error by the district court in its denial of the Rule 1-060(B) Motion on grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct of an adverse party, the judgment being void, and any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Appellant's Rule 1-060(B) Motion.

Reasons

• BACA, Judge; MEDINA, Judge; YOHALEM, Judge (concurring): The panel concluded that the district court's denial of the Appellant's Rule 1-060(B) Motion was a final appealable order, as all issues raised by the motion were fully disposed of by the district court's order denying that motion and refusing to reopen the Summary Judgment. The Court of Appeals found no error in the district court's denial of the motion, stating that the Appellant failed to demonstrate grounds for relief under Rule 1-060(B) subsections (1), (3), (4), or (6). Specifically, the Appellant's motion was found untimely under subsections (1) and (3), and the arguments for fraud upon the court and violation of due process rights under subsections (6) and (4), respectively, were not persuasive. The Court of Appeals also noted that the Appellant had been provided adequate notice of the proceedings and that there was no fraud upon the court as the Appellee had sought confirmation from the bankruptcy court regarding the foreclosure actions against the co-defendants, which was granted.