May 7, 2019- Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Joel S. Hickerson, No. A-1-CA-37318

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

10
1]

12

13
14

15
16

17
18
19
20

21
22

23:

Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Filed 5/7/ 19 11:01 AM
‘i [> :

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. | No. A-1-CA-37318

JOEL S. HICKERSON a/k/a JOEL SCOT
HICKERSON a/k/a SCOT J. HICKERSON,

Defendant-Appellee,
and
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION; BANK OF AMERICA,
NA; and KIRSTEN HICKERSON,

Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Valerie A. Huling, District Judge

Tonn K. Petersen
Meridian, [ID

Rose L. Brand & Associates, P.C.
Jennifer L. Isom

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

Joel S. Hickerson
Albuquerque, NM

Pro Se Appellee

Mark Reynol

1 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
2 HANISEE, Judge.
3 	{t} 	Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage, LLC appeals from the district court's order
4 granting Defendant Joel Hickerson's (Hickerson) motion to dismiss and subsequent
5 order denying Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. In this Court's notice of
6 proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily reverse and remand based on
7 apparent error with regard to each of the issues raised by Plaintiff. Defendant
8 Hickerson, a self-represented litigant, filed a memorandum in opposition, which we
9 have duly considered. Unpersuaded by the memorandum in opposition, we reverse
10 and remand.
11 	{2} 	In his memorandum in opposition, Hickerson essentially argues that we should
12 affirm the district court because Plaintiff did not have standing at the beginning of the
13 	case as the statute of limitations had run. First, this issue was not preserved with the
14 district court, as acknowledged by Plaintiff in his memorandum in opposition. [MIO
15 	PDF 2 (noting that the district court granted his motion before he could raise the
16 	statute of limitations issue)] See Rule 12-32l{A) NMRA {"To preserve an issue for
17 review, it must appear that a ruling or decision by the trial court was fairly invoked.");
18 	Crutchfieldv. NM Dep'tofTaxation &Revenue, 2005-NMCA-022, ,r 14, 137N.M.
19 26, 106 P.3d 1273 ("[O]n appeal, the party must specifically point out where, in the
2

1 record, the party invoked the court's ruling on the issue[,]" and "[a]bsent that citation
2 to the record or any obvious preservation, we will not consider the issue."); see also
3 State v. Nichols, 2006-NMCA-017, ,-r 27, 139 N.M. 72, 128 P.3d 500 (reiterating that,
4 "in order to preserve an error for appeal, it is essential that the ground or grounds of
5 the objection or motion be made with sufficient specificity to alert the mind of the
6 trial court to the claimed error or errors, and that a ruling thereon then be invoked"
7 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)).
8 	{3} 	Second, even if the issue had been properly preserved [See MIO PDF] (noting
9 that "I did claim the Statute of Limitations law at the end of the case")], the facts as
10 presently known by this Court do not indicate that the statute of limitations warrants
11 	dismissal of the action, either in part or in whole. See Weltyv. W. Banko/Las Cruces,
12 	1987-NMSC-066, ,-r 9, 106 N.M. 126, 740 P.2d 120 (holding that, "where no action
13 	on the contracts was possible until thirty days after a notice of default, the statute of
14 limitations was suspended for thirty days following the notice"); see also id. ( stating
15 	that "the statute would have begun to run only with respect to each installment when
16 due" and that "[t]he statute would have begun to run with respect to the whole
17 	indebtedness only from the date of an exercise of the option to declare the whole
18 	indebtedness due"); LSF9 Master Participation Trustv. Sanchez,_· -NMCA-_,
3

1 ,r 	12, _ 	P.3d _ 	(No. A-1-CA-36014, Dec. 	28, 2018) (quoting 	Welty and
2 reiterating the same).
3 	{4} 	Hickerson has presented this Court with no other facts, argument, or authority
4 that persuade us that our proposed disposition was incorrect. See Hennessy v. Duryea,
5 	1998-NMCA-036, ,r 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 ("Our courts have repeatedly
6 held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the
7 proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law."); State v. Mondragon,
8 	1988-NMCA-027, ,r 10, 107N.M.421, 759P.2d 1003 (statingthatapartyresponding
9 to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of
10 law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement),
11 	superseded 	by 	statute 	on 	other 	grounds 	as 	stated 	in 	State 	v. 	Harris,
12 2013-NMCA-03 l, ,r 3, 297 P.3d 374.
13 	{5} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and
14 herein, we reverse the district court's order granting Hickerson's motion to dismiss
15 	and subsequent order denying Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, and remand for
16 further consideration.
17 {6}
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
- 	....
}b.~
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
4

WE CONCUR:

Kv

M. MONICA ZAMORA, Chief Judge

p

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge