August 10, 2020- The Bank of New York Mellon v. Roberto Vigil, No. A-1-CA-38559

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with
NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in
Odyssey.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
3 f/k/a THE BANK OF NEW YORK as
4 Trustee for the Benefit of the Certificate
5 Holders of the CWALT, INC. ALTERNATIVE
6 LOAN TRUST 2004-25CB, MORTGAGE
7 PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES,
8 SERIES 2004-25CB,
9 Plaintiff-Appellee,
10 v. No. A-1-CA-38559
11 ROBERTO VIGIL a/k/a BOBBY VIGIL,
12 Defendant-Appellant.
13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TAOS COUNTY
14 Emilio J. Chavez, District Judge
15 Tiffany & Bosco, P.A.
16 Karen H. Bradley
17 Albuquerque, NM
18 for Appellee
19 Robert Vigil
20 Galion, OH
21 Pro Se Appellant
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 8/10/2020 8:29 AM

2
1 MEMORANDUM OPINION
2 VARGAS, Judge.
3 {1} Defendant appealed following the entry of a judgment. We issued a notice of
4 proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to dismiss. Neither party has
5 filed a responsive memorandum. However, Defendant has filed a “Request for
6 Clarification,” which we will treat as such. After due consideration, we dismiss.
7 {2} We previously set forth the relevant information and authority. Neither of the
8 parties has expressed any disagreement, we will therefore avoid undue reiteration
9 here. We adhere to our initial assessment, and conclude that the instant appeal is
10 premature.
11 {3} In his submission, Defendant seeks clarification of the right to appeal “if and
12 when” the district court enters a final, appealable order. We note simply that the right
13 of appeal is constitutionally guaranteed to any aggrieved party. See N.M. Const. art.
14 VI, § 2 (stating that “an aggrieved party shall have an absolute right to one appeal”
15 from a judgment of the district court); see also Grygorwicz v. Trujillo,
16 2009-NMSC-009, ¶ 7, 145 N.M. 650, 203 P.3d 865 (acknowledging this principle,
17 in the context of a foreclosure action). Defendant also appears to request guidance
18 relative to a question of federal jurisdiction. This we cannot supply. See In re

3
1 Timberon Water Co., 1992-NMSC-047, ¶ 33, 114 N.M. 154, 836 P.2d 73 (indicating
2 that appellate courts “do not give advisory opinions”).
3 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary
4 disposition, we dismiss.
5 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge
8 WE CONCUR:
9
10 KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge
11
12 ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge