Quicken Loans Inc. v. Shaw
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 QUICKEN LOANS INC., 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4 v. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NO. A-1-CA-36770 GLENDA D. SHAW, JEFF N. SHAW, THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND REVENUE, THE UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF GLENDA D. SHAW, IF ANY, AND THE UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF JEFF N. SHAW, IF ANY, Defendants-Appellants. 12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY 13 Daniel A. Bryant, District Judge 14 Weinstein & Riley, P.S. 15 Jason Bousliman 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellee 18 Glenda D. Shaw 19 Jeff N. Shaw 20 Ruidoso, NM 21 Pro Se Appellants 22 Julia A. Belles 23 Santa Fe, NM 1 for Appellant N.M. Taxation & Revenue Department 2 MEMORANDUM OPINION 3 VIGIL, Judge. 4 {1} Pro se Defendant Glenda D. Shaw appeals from the district court’s order 5 denying Defendant’s motion to set aside the foreclosure judgment and sale, pursuant 6 to Rule 1-060(B)(6) NMRA [RP 277-78]. Defendant has filed a memorandum in 7 opposition (MIO). After due consideration, we are unpersuaded and therefore affirm. 8 {2} We will avoid repetition here of pertinent background, analytical principles, and 9 analysis set forth in our calendar notice. In our calendar notice, we explained two 10 reasons that Defendant’s standing challenge seemed unpersuasive: her attempt to void 11 the final foreclosure judgment through a challenge grounded in Rule 1-060(B) is 12 contrary to Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Johnston, 2016-NMSC-013, ¶ 34, 13 369 P.3d 1046 (holding that completed foreclosure judgments are not voidable 14 pursuant to Rule 1-060(B) for lack of standing), [CN 3] and, additionally, the record 15 seemed to demonstrate that Plaintiff met the standing requirements of our Uniform 16 Commercial Code as articulated in our case law [CN 3-4]. Defendant has not 17 addressed our analyses of these reasons to affirm the judgment of the district court. 18 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court denying Defendant’s motion 2 1 to set aside the foreclosure judgment and sale pursuant to Rule 1-060(B)(6) NMRA 2 [RP 277-78]. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 3 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the 4 burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in 5 fact or law.”). 6 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 ________________________________ MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 9 WE CONCUR: 10 ____________________________ 11 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 12 ____________________________ 13 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, 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.
