Park v. Park
A-1-CA-36302
| N.M. Ct. App. | Sep 12, 2017Background
- Plaintiff S. Leigh Park obtained a default judgment against Defendant Nancy Archbell Park in Santa Fe County district court.
- Defendant moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing timeliness and that exceptional circumstances existed (including alleged judicial error and a meritorious defense).
- The district court denied Defendant’s motion without written findings; the plaintiff opposed the motion and provided detailed Rule 1-060(B) analysis in the record.
- Defendant appealed the denial of her motion to set aside the judgment to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm and instructed Defendant to identify disputed facts, record support, and controlling authority showing the motion was filed within a reasonable time under Rule 1-060(B)(6).
- Defendant’s response did not show she filed within a reasonable time or that exceptional circumstances (as required by Rule 1-060(B)(6)) existed; the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendant can directly attack the default judgment on appeal | Park: Defendant failed to timely appeal the default judgment, so direct attack is unavailable | Archbell: Challenges the default judgment's merits and timeliness of relief | Held: Defendant cannot directly attack the judgment because she did not timely appeal; relief must be via Rule 1-060(B)(6) motion |
| Whether the motion to set aside was filed within a "reasonable time" under Rule 1-060(B)(6) | Park: Defendant made no showing of reasonable timeliness or explanation for delay | Archbell: Delay caused no prejudice and she did not appreciate the suit's impact earlier | Held: Defendant failed to show filing within a reasonable time; her contentions were insufficient under Meiboom factors |
| Whether "exceptional circumstances" under Rule 1-060(B)(6) justified relief | Park: No exceptional circumstances shown; arguments amounted to judicial error/merits, not Rule 1-060(B)(6) grounds | Archbell: District court erred by granting relief not pleaded and that constitutes exceptional circumstances / meritorious defense | Held: Judicial error or meritorious defense does not constitute the "exceptional circumstances" required by Rule 1-060(B)(6) (per Resolution Trust Co. v. Ferri) |
| Whether the Court of Appeals should evaluate oral remarks or lack of written findings by the district court | Park: Plaintiff provided thorough written analysis below; oral comments are not a basis for error | Archbell: Relies on district court's oral comments and perceived merits discussion | Held: Oral remarks are not a basis for error absent mandatory written findings; appellate court may affirm for any correct reason supported by the parties' presentations |
Key Cases Cited
- Meiboom v. Watson, 128 N.M. 536 (N.M. 2000) ("reasonable time" inquiry considers multiple factors including finality, reason for delay, ability to know earlier, and prejudice)
- Resolution Trust Co. v. Ferri, 120 N.M. 320 (N.M. 1995) (Rule 1-060(B)(6) relief requires "exceptional circumstances" beyond judicial error or merits)
- Seipert v. Johnson, 134 N.M. 394 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) (oral remarks cannot supply error where written findings are not mandatory)
- Rangel v. Save Mart, Inc., 140 N.M. 395 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (court may not rely on oral statements as a basis for error absent required written findings)
- Romero v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 150 N.M. 59 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (appellate court can affirm for any correct reason that was presented to the trial court)