Wellington v. MTGLQ Investors, LP
1:22-cv-00069
D.N.M.Feb 3, 2022Background
- This is the third related suit arising from MTGLQ Investors, LP’s 2017 foreclosure against Monica Wellington (MTGLQ I); David Wellington is Monica’s brother and unsuccessfully sought to intervene in MTGLQ I.
- Judge Gonzales entered a judgment of foreclosure and appointed Margaret Lake as special master; the Tenth Circuit affirmed the foreclosure judgment.
- Monica moved to vacate the special-master appointment under Rule 53; the motion was denied as untimely and on the merits.
- David filed a separate quiet-title action (MTGLQ II) that was dismissed as barred by res judicata; his proposed amended complaint was deemed insufficient to meet the high Beggerly standard for an independent action under Rule 60(d).
- In MTGLQ III David again seeks independent relief under Rule 60(d), challenging the foreclosure judgment (arguing MTGLQ did not legally exist, no mortgage balance, judge recusal) and asserting Rule 53 and Rule 65 defects concerning the special master and possession provisions.
- The magistrate judge found the allegations largely duplicative and insufficient under United States v. Beggerly, granted David limited electronic-filing permission, and ordered David to show cause within 21 days why the case should not be dismissed (and to file an amended complaint if he opposes dismissal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an independent action under Rule 60(d) meets Beggerly’s elements | David contends the foreclosure judgment should not be enforced (MTGLQ doesn’t legally exist; no mortgage balance; recusal needed) | Prior rulings and record foreclose relief; allegations duplicate prior filings and fail to show absence of plaintiff fault or lack of an adequate legal remedy | Allegations are insufficient under Beggerly; court ordered David to show cause and file an amended complaint or face dismissal |
| Whether appointment of special master violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 | David alleges the special-master appointment did not comply with Rule 53 | Court previously addressed and rejected similar Rule 53 objections; objections were untimely and considered on the record | Court noted plaintiff failed to address Judge Gonzales’ prior discussion and found the claim insufficient |
| Whether foreclosure judgment provisions are an injunction requiring Rule 65 procedures | David asserts possession/abandonment provisions function as an injunction issued without Rule 65 process | No supporting authority that a foreclosure judgment’s sale/possession provisions are a separate injunction; claim was undeveloped | Court found no legal authority cited and treated the allegation as insufficient |
| Permission to file electronically | David requests CM/ECF filing ability and affirms familiarity with the system | No opposition noted; court may limit or revoke for abuse | Permission to e-file in this case was granted (subject to court rules and potential revocation) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38 (1998) (independent Rule 60(d) actions are narrow and reserved to prevent grave miscarriages of justice)
- Hazel–Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford–Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) (historic recognition of equitable relief to set aside judgments for fraud and other grave injustices)
- Plain v. Murphy Family Farms, 296 F.3d 975 (10th Cir. 2002) (order denying intervention is final and immediately appealable)
- Robinson v. Volkswagenwerk A.G., 56 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 1995) (discussing nature and availability of independent equitable actions for relief from judgment)