July 18, 2019- Broker Solutions, Inc. v. Patrick J. Archuleta, No. A-1-CA-37745

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 BROKER SOLUTIONS, INC.,
3 	d/b/a NEW AMERICAN FUNDING,
4 	Plaintiff-Appellee,
5 v. 	No. A-1-CA-37745
6 PATRICK J. ARCHULETA,
7 	Defendant-Appellant,
8 and
9 	THE UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF
10 	PATRICKJ. ARCHULETA, if any,
11 	STATEFARMMUTUAL
12 	AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
13 	COMPANY, and WILLIAM BURTON,
14 	Defendants.
15 	APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY
16 	Jason Lidyard, District Judge
17 	Rose L. Brand & Associates, P.C.
18 	Eraina M. Edwards
19 Albuquerque, NM
20 	for Appellee
21 	Patrick J. Archuleta
22 	Santa Fe, NM
23 	Pro Se Appellant
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 7/18/2019 8:39 AM

1 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
2 HANISEE, Judge.
3 	{t} 	Patrick J. Archuleta (Defendant) has appealed from an order confirming a
4 judicial sale. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in
5 which we proposed to affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition.
6 After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. 	We therefore affirm.
7 	{2} 	To 	very 	briefly reiterate the pertinent procedural 	history, a decree 	of
8 foreclosure was entered in December 2014. [RP 123] Defendant subsequently moved
9 for relief from that judgment pursuant to Rule 1-060(B) NMRA, which the district
10 	court denied. [RP 263-69, 379-81] Defendant appealed from that ruling, contending
11 	that 	Plaintiff had 	failed 	to 	establish 	its 	standing. 	[RP 	388-96] 	We 	rejected
12 	Defendant' s arguments, on grounds that standing cannot be challenged in the first
13 	instance on appeal. [RP 401-15] See Deutsche Bank Nat 'l Tru st Co . v. Johnston
14 	(Deutsche Bank!!), 2016-NMSC-013 , 134 , 369 P.3d 1046 (" [A] final judgment on
15 	... an action to enforce a promissory note [in a foreclosure case] ... is not voidable
16 	under Rule 1-060(B) due to lack of prudential standing."). After mandate issued, the
17 	matter proceeded to a sale of the subject property. [RP 411,428,431] Defendant filed
18 	objections to the report, which the district court rejected. [RP 438, 482, 85] The
2

1 instant appeal followed, in which Defendant has once again sought to challenge
2 Plaintiffs standing. [DS 19-22; MIO 1-11]
3 	{3} 	As we previously observed in the notice of proposed summary disposition, [CN
4 3-4] although Defendant was entitled to pursue the instant appeal, the disposition
5 rendered in the course of the previous appeal is law of the case. Accordingly,
6 Defendant's continuing attempts to challenge Plaintiffs standing are foreclosed. See
7 generallyGeretyv. Demers, 1978-NMSC-097, ,35, 92 N.M. 396,589 P.2d 180 ("[A]
8 decision upon a former appeal is binding upon the appellate court on the second
9 appeal[.]"); 	Ute 	Park 	Summer 	Homes 	Ass 'n 	v. 	Maxwell 	Land 	Grant 	Co.,
10 	1972-NMSC-018, , 	12, 83 N.M. 558, 494 P.2d 971 ("If an appellate court has
11 	considered and passed upon a question of law and remanded the case for further
12 	proceedings, the legal question so resolved will not be determined in a different
13 	manner on a subsequent appeal."); DiMatteo v. Cty. of Dona Ana ex rel. Bd. ofCty.
14 	Comm 'rs, 1989-NMCA-108,, 25, 109 N.M. 374, 785 P.2d 285 ("The doctrine of
15 	'law of the case' means that a prior appellate decision is binding."). 	Defendant's
16 	memorandum in opposition wholly fails to address this consideration. We therefore
17 adhere to our initial assessment, and conclude that there is no basis for considering
18 	the issues further.
3

1 {4} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed
2 summary disposition, we affirm.
3 	{5}
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6 	WE CONCUR:
9 	~ 	'f ellJ10 	MEGANP.D~dge
- 	./
)'.~
J. MILES HANISEE Judge
4