Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Alverson
A-1-CA-36057
N.M. Ct. App.Sep 21, 2017Background
- Wells Fargo obtained a default judgment, decree of foreclosure, appointment of special master, and order for sale on May 8, 2014, against homeowner Steve Alverson in Santa Fe County district court.
- Alverson did not timely appeal that foreclosure judgment; instead he later filed a Rule 1-060(B) motion seeking relief from the final judgment and an order to vacate/ dismiss, which the district court denied on December 2, 2016.
- Alverson, appearing pro se on appeal, primarily argued Wells Fargo lacked standing to foreclose and that he was denied due process because he did not receive notice of filings between November 2013 and July 2014.
- The Court of Appeals limited its review to the district court’s denial of the Rule 1-060(B) motion (Alverson’s collateral attack), not to the original foreclosure judgment.
- The district court record showed counsel (N. Ana Gardner) had entered an appearance for Alverson in October 2012 and no court order permitting withdrawal appears; Wells Fargo served pleadings on counsel and later on Alverson at the address he designated after he filed a “Notice of Dismissal of Attorney.”
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding prudential standing arguments were waived by failure to timely appeal, Alverson did not show entitlement to Rule 1-060(B)(6) relief, and the district court did not abuse its discretion on the due-process/notice issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wells Fargo) | Defendant's Argument (Alverson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Standing to foreclose | Wells Fargo: foreclosure judgment is final; standing not subject to collateral attack under Rule 1-060(B) | Alverson: Wells Fargo lacked standing to enforce the promissory note and foreclose | Court: Prudential standing waived by failure to timely appeal; cannot be the basis for Rule 1-060(B) collateral attack; affirmed |
| 2. Relief under Rule 1-060(B)(6) | Wells Fargo: no extraordinary circumstances shown to justify vacation of judgment | Alverson: Rule 1-060(B)(6) allows vacatur for "any other reason" and substantial justice requires vacatur | Court: Alverson failed to demonstrate entitlement to relief under (B)(6); burden on appellant not met; affirmed |
| 3. Due process / notice of filings | Wells Fargo: counsel had appeared and was served; later served Alverson at the address he designated | Alverson: He did not receive correspondence from Nov 2013–Jul 2014 and was denied due process | Court: Review for abuse of discretion; record supports service on counsel and on Alverson later; no abuse of discretion; affirmed |
| 4. Standard of review | Wells Fargo: factual due-process claims reviewed for abuse of discretion | Alverson: asserts questions of law and argues de novo review | Court: Alverson’s claim was factual (receipt of mail); abuse-of-discretion standard applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Johnston, 369 P.3d 1046 (N.M. 2016) (a final judgment enforcing a promissory note is not voidable under Rule 1-060(B) for lack of prudential standing)
- Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 800 P.2d 1063 (N.M. 1990) (appellate courts presume district court correctness and appellant bears burden to show error)
- Edens v. Edens, 109 P.3d 295 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (Rule 1-060(B) review is generally for abuse of discretion when issues are factual)
- Sims v. Sims, 930 P.2d 153 (N.M. 1996) (defines abuse of discretion as a ruling contrary to logical conclusions demanded by facts)
- Marquez v. Larrabee, 382 P.3d 968 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016) (limit appellate review to timely appealed rulings; collateral attacks on other final orders may be inappropriate)