Price v. JP Morgan Chase
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 BRENDA C. PRICE, 3 Plaintiff-Appellant, 4 v. No. A-1-CA-36357 5 6 7 8 9 10 JP MORGAN CHASE, NA; CHASE HOME FINANCE; BANK OF AMERICA, NA; S&S FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC; LINDA SCHOLLER; and JEANIE SOULE-MEIHOUS, 11 Defendants-Appellees. 12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TAOS COUNTY 13 Jeff Foster McElroy, District Judge 14 Brenda C. Price 15 Taos, NM 16 Pro Se Appellant 17 Weinstein & Riley, P.S. 18 Jason Collis Bousliman 19 Albuquerque, NM 20 for Appellee Bank of America 21 Feferman, Warren & Mattison 22 Richard N. Feferman 1 Albuquerque, NM 2 for Appellees Scholler and Soule-Meihous 3 MEMORANDUM OPINION 4 VIGIL, Judge. 5 {1} Plaintiff Brenda C. Price, a self-represented litigant, appeals from the district 6 court’s omnibus order granting Defendants JP Morgan Chase, NA; Chase Home 7 Finance; Bank of America NA; S&S Financial Group, LLC; Linda Scholler; and 8 Jeanie Soule-Meihous’ motions to dismiss and order denying Plaintiff’s motions to 9 vacate the dismissal and petition for rehearing. In this Court’s notice of proposed 10 disposition, we proposed summary affirmance. When the time for filing a 11 memorandum in opposition expired without Plaintiff having filed any such 12 memorandum in opposition, this Court entered a memorandum opinion affirming the 13 district court’s orders. Plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing, which this Court granted. 14 Plaintiff thereafter filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO), which we have duly 15 considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm. 16 {2} The facts, law, and/or arguments asserted in Plaintiff’s memorandum in 17 opposition are either addressed by this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, or 18 otherwise do not persuade this Court that the district court has erred. See Hennessy v. 19 Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have 2 1 repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing 2 the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”); State v. 3 Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that “[a] 4 party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically 5 point out errors of law and fact,” and the repetition of earlier arguments does not 6 fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. 7 Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in 8 our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm the district court’s orders. 9 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 _________________________________ MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 12 WE CONCUR: 13 _____________________________ 14 HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge 15 _____________________________ 16 EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
