May 7, 2019- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Marcelina Y. Martinez, No. A-1-CA-36285

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

SIA NB W bd

10

11

12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

24

25
26

Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Filed 5/7/3019 10:42 AM
. ‘i [> :

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as

Trustee on Behalf of the HOLDERS

OF THE HARBORVIEW MORTGAGE
LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE

LOAN PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES
SERIES 2007-1,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. A-1-CA-36285

MARCELINA Y. MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant,

and

CARL J. MARTINEZ, THE BANK

OF NEW YORK MELLON f/k/a THE
BANK OF NEW YORK, as Successor |
Trustee to JEPMORGAN CHASE

BANK, N.A., as Trustee on

Behalf of the CERTIFICATE
HOLDERS OF THE CWHEQ INC.,
CWHEQ REVOLVING HOME EQUITY
LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2007-1,
GILBERT ROMERO AND UNKNOWN
TENANT (REAL NAME UNKNOWN),

Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY
David K. Thomson, District Judge

Mark Reynolds

1 Houser & Allison, APC
2 Lindsay K. Griffel
3 Albuquerque, NM
4 for Appellee
5 Marcelina Martinez
6 Santa Cruz, NM
7 Pro Se Appellant
8
9 V ANZI, Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
10 {1} 	Defendant-Appellant Marcelina Martinez (Defendant), a self-represented
11 	litigant, appeals from the district court's in rem judgment, decree of foreclosure, and
12 order of sale and denial of her motion for reconsideration. In this Court's notice of
13 	proposed 	disposition, 	we 	proposed 	summary 	affirmance. 	Defendant 	filed 	a
14 memorandum in opposition and Plaintiff filed a memorandum in support, which we
15 	have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.
16 {2} 	In her memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to argue that the
17 district court judge acted outside his authority by issuing orders based on a hearing
18 conducted by a previous judge; the district court erred in granting summary judgment
19 despite numerous material fact disputes; and the district court erred in presuming
20 standing despite several issues indicating a lack thereof. Defendant has not asserted
21 	any facts, law, or argument that persuade us that our notice of proposed disposition
2

1 was erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, 124, 124 N.M. 754,955
2 P .2d 683 ("Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the
3 burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors
4 in fact or law."); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, 110, 107 N.M. 421, 759
5 P .2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come
6 forward and specifically point out errors oflaw and fact, and the repetition of earlier
7 arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds
8 as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, 1 3, 297 P.3d 374. To the extent
9 Defendant argued in her amended docketing statement that the district court abused
10 	its discretion by failing to fully adjudicate the motion to vacate orders prior to ruling
11 	on subsequent motions, we deem this issue abandoned. See State v. Johnson, 1988-
12 NMCA-029, 18, 107 N.M. 356, 758 P.2d 306 (explaining that when a case is decided
13 	on the summary calendar, an issue is deemed abandoned when a party fails to respond
14 to the proposed disposition of that issue).
15 	{3} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and
16 herein, we affirm the district court's orders.
17 	{4}
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3

1 WE CONCUR:
Kristina Bogardus
2 3
KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge
5 Buena Ramosa
BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Judge
-
4