March 27, 2019- Bank of America, N.A. v. Jerome T. Roybal, No. A-1-CA-37408

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

]

[o@)

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

18

19

20

21

22

IN1 E COURT OF APPEALS OF THE S: ATE OF NEW MEXI|LJ
Court of Appeals of New Mexico

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Filed 3/27/2019 9:56 AM
f
Plaintiff-Appellee, Ad. ~ £4
Mark Reynolds
v. No. A-1-CA-z . 408
JEROME T. JYBA™ and

AMY J. ROYBAL,
Defendants-Appellants.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY
Nan G. Nash, District Judge

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
Gregory J. Marshall
Jeanne Y. Sohn
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

Jerome T. Roybal
Amy J. Roybal

Santa Fe, NM

Pro Se Appellants

M~ VMORANDUM OPINION
VAN™,.
{1} Defendants, self-represented litigants, appeal from the district court’s order

confirming sale and special master’s report. In our notice of proposed disposition, we

1 proposed to summarily affirm because Defendants had not preserved their issue.
2 Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered.
3 Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.
4 	{2} 	In their memorandum in opposition, Defendants argue that they had preserved
5 the issue because they filed their notices in the district court, which included language
6 that "until and unless some objection against [their] declaration is made, there is no
7 controversy raised regarding th[ eir] declaration[,] so it must be taken that the Order
8 Confirming Sale[,] as well as the Special Master's Report, which contained the
9 Special Master's Deed, are all invalid." [MIO 2-3 (emphasis, internal quotation
10 	marks, and citation omitted)] Defendants contend that, because the district court did
11 	not oppose such notice, the issue is ripe for appeal. [See MIO 3- 7]
12 	{3} 	First, Defendants are incorrect that they fairly invoked a ruling or decision by
13 	the district court because filing notices announcing some intent does not seek a ruling
14 	or decision by the district court. Pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure for the
15 	District Courts, "[ a]n application to the court for an order shall be by motion which,
16 	unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be made in writing, shall state with
17 	particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought. The
18 	requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the
2

1 hearing ofthe motion." Rule 1-007(B)(l) NMRA ( emphases added); State v. Nichols,
2 	2006-NMCA-017, ,I 27, 139 N.M. 72, 128 P.3d 500 (reiterating that, "in order to
3 	preserve an error for appeal, it is essential that the ground or grounds of the objection
4 	or motion be made with sufficient specificity to alert the mind of the trial court to the
5 	claimed error or errors, and that a ruling thereon then be invoked' ( emphasis added)
6 	(alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). Defendants filed no such
7 motion or notice of hearing of the motion, or otherwise requested an order or ruling
8 	on their notices. [See generally RP]
9 	{4} 	Additionally, the Local Rules of the District Court of the First Judicial District
10 	state that:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
At the expiration of all responsive times, under Rule 1-007 .1 NMRA,
the movant shall submit to the judge assigned to the case a copy of the
motion, any response, any reply, and a copy of a request for hearing
(after filing the request with the clerk of the court) and notice ofhearing
form, if a party is seeking a hearing, in a package. The submission of the
... package alerts the court that the motion is ripe for decision. The
package shall be submitted either in electronic form to the judge's
e-mail address or in hard copy form, or both, depending on the presiding
judge 's preference. Each judge's preference for the form of the package
will be listed on the court's website. The notice of hearing must be
submitted in Word or WordPerfect when the package is submitted
electronically. Copies of the package submission must be served on all
parties and the service must be indicated on the transmittal.
3

1 LR1-201(D) NMRA (emphases added). Simply waiting for time to pass after a notice
2 has been filed meets neither of the rules' requirements.
3 	{S} 	Second, the 	issue asserted on appeal, which Defendants reassert as the
4 "preserved issue" before this Court, is: in light of the purported voidance of the
5 instruments, "can the special master's deed and subsequently the approval of sale be
6 anything but void, and if so how so?" [MIO 8] As we stated in our calendar notice,
7 this issue was not first raised in the district court, and we will not consider it on
8 appeal. See Rule 12-321(A) NMRA ("To preserve an issue for review, it must appear
9 that a ruling or decision by the trial court was fairly invoked."); Crutchfield v. NM
10 Dep 't of Taxation & Revenue, 2005-NMCA-022, ,r 14, 137 N.M. 26, 106 P.3d 1273
11 	("[O]n appeal, the party must specifically point out where, in the record, the party
12 	invoked the court's ruling on the issue[,]" and "[a]bsent that citation to the record or
13 	any obvious preservation, we will not consider the issue.").
14 	{6} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and
15 	herein, we affirm.
16 	{7}
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4

1 |WE CONCUR:
Jacqueline R. Medince
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
Megan P Daffy
MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge
5
2 3 4 5