June 3, 2019- Federal National Mortgage Association v. Arthur R. Archuleta, No. A-1-CA-37680

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

—

10
11

12

13
14

15
16
17
18
19

20
21

22

Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 6/3/2019 2:02 PM

Hue
Mark Reynolds

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. NO. A-1-CA-37680
ARTHUR R. ARCHULETA,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
NICOLE D. ARCHULETA and NEW
MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUE
DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY
Abigail Aragon, District Judge

Rose L. Brand & Associates, P.C.
Eraina M. Edwards

Andrew P. Yarrington
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

Arthur R. Archuleta
Las Vegas, NM

Pro Se Appellant

10

11

12

13

14

[5

16

17

18

19

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VARGAS, Judge.

3} Arthur R. Archuleta (Defendant), a self-represented litigant, appeals from (1)
the summary and stipulated judgment, default foreclosure judgment, order for
foreclosure sale, and order denying motion to compel, and (2) the order confirming
sale and special master’s report. In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we
proposed to summarily affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which
we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.

23, In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to argue that the
district court erred in finding that Plaintiff had standing to foreclose and in granting
Plaintiff a writ of execution in its order confirming sale. [See MIO 1-4] Although
Defendant continues to make such arguments, pointing to apparent discrepancies in
dates or documents, we remain unpersuaded that the district court erred and are
consequently unpersuaded that our proposed disposition was incorrect. See Hennessy
v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, § 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have
repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing
the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”); State v.
Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, § 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a

party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically

7

8

10

11

12

13
14

15

point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill
this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris,
2013-NMCA-031, 9 3, 297 P.3d 374. We therefore refer Defendant to the analysis
contained within our calendar notice.

3} We additionally note that, although Defendant apparently believes Plaintiff
may not have properly possessed the note, the evidence presented to the district court
nonetheless supports its conclusion that Plaintiff was in physical possession of the
note, indorsed in blank, when the complaint was filed. Defendant’s arguments to the
contrary are unpersuasive as a matter of law.

{4 Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and
herein, we affirm.

6} ITISSO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

Mb eee Spo —

M. MONICA ZAMORK, Thief Judge