New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2013

Deutsche Bank v. Van Rooyen

Deutsche Bank v. Van Rooyen
New Mexico Court of Appeals · Decided February 14, 2013

Deutsche Bank v. Van Rooyen

Opinion

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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, as Trustee, 4 Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NO. 32,341 ROBERT M. VAN ROOYEN and LISA P. MARSTON-VAN ROOYEN, 8 Defendants-Appellants.

9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Beatrice J. Brickhouse, District Judge Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A.

12 William R. Keleher Jennifer L. Bradfute Albuquerque, NM for Appellee Albuquerque Business Law, P.C.

17 Patrick J. Griebel Heather S. Jaramillo Albuquerque, NM for Appellant 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION VANZI, Judge.

2 Defendants/Appellants, Robert M. Van Rooyen and Lisa P. Marston-Van Rooyen, appeal from the district court’s order denying Defendants’ emergency motion to vacate default judgment and special master sale (“motion to vacate”). [DS 2, 5, RP 323] We issued a notice on January 7, 2013, proposing to summarily affirm.

6 Defendants had twenty days from the date of service of this notice to serve and file a memorandum in opposition. Rule 12-210(D)(3) NMRA. Defendants have failed to file either a memorandum in opposition to our proposed summary disposition or a request for an extension of time. On January 28, 2013, Plaintiff/Appellee, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, filed a memorandum in support of our proposed summary disposition. We have previously held that “[f]ailure to file a memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance of the disposition proposed in the calendar notice.” Frick v. Veazey, 116 N.M. 246, 247, 861 P.2d 287, 288 (Ct. App. 1993).

14 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to vacate.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 __________________________________ 17 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge WE CONCUR:

19 _________________________________ JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge _________________________________ CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.