Deutsche Bank v. Van Rooyen

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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum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 DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY
3 AMERICAS, as Trustee,
4 Plaintiff-Appellee,
5 v. NO. 32,341
6 ROBERT M. VAN ROOYEN and
7 LISA P. MARSTON-VAN ROOYEN,
8 Defendants-Appellants.
9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
10 Beatrice J. Brickhouse, District Judge
11 Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A.
12 William R. Keleher
13 Jennifer L. Bradfute
14 Albuquerque, NM
15 for Appellee
16 Albuquerque Business Law, P.C.
17 Patrick J. Griebel
18 Heather S. Jaramillo
19 Albuquerque, NM
20 for Appellant
21 MEMORANDUM OPINION
1 VANZI, Judge.
2 Defendants/Appellants, Robert M. Van Rooyen and Lisa P. Marston-Van
3 Rooyen, appeal from the district court’s order denying Defendants’ emergency motion
4 to vacate default judgment and special master sale (“motion to vacate”). [DS 2, 5, RP
5 323] 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
7 memorandum in opposition. Rule 12-210(D)(3) NMRA. Defendants have failed to
8 file either a memorandum in opposition to our proposed summary disposition or a
9 request for an extension of time. On January 28, 2013, Plaintiff/Appellee, Deutsche
10 Bank Trust Company Americas, filed a memorandum in support of our proposed
11 summary disposition. We have previously held that “[f]ailure to file a memorandum
12 in opposition constitutes acceptance of the disposition proposed in the calendar
13 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
18 WE CONCUR:
19 _________________________________
20 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
2
1 _________________________________
2 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
3