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 Defendants sought relief from a judgment through a Rule 60(B) motion, which allows a party to request relief from a final judgment under certain circumstances. The case involves a dispute between the Plaintiffs, who are mortgage lenders, and the Defendants, who are homeowners. The specific facts leading to the dispute are not detailed in the decision.
Procedural History
- District Court of Otero County: Denied the Defendants' Rule 60(B) motion.
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellees: Filed a memorandum in support of the Court of Appeals' proposed decision to affirm the district court's denial of the Defendants' Rule 60(B) motion. (N/A)
- Defendants-Appellants: Did not respond to the Court of Appeals' proposed decision to affirm the district court's judgment.
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendants' Rule 60(B) motion.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendants' Rule 60(B) motion.
Reasons
Per Roderick T. Kennedy J. (Bustamante and Garcia JJ. concurring):
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision because the Defendants failed to respond to the Court's proposed calendar notice, which had suggested affirming the lower court's ruling. The Plaintiffs supported the proposed decision, and the Defendants' lack of response was deemed a waiver of their opportunity to contest the proposed outcome. The judgment was affirmed for the reasons stated in the calendar notice. (headnotes)