Bank of New York v. Trujillo
This text of Bank of New York v. Trujillo (Bank of New York v. Trujillo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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
2 BANK OF NEW YORK, as 3 Trustee for the 4 CertificateHolders of the 5 CWABS 2005-1,
6 Plaintiff-Appellee,
7 v. NO. A-1-CA-37158
8 GREG M. TRUJILLO, a/k/a 9 GREGORY M. TRUJILLO,
10 Defendant-Appellant,
11 and
12 NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF 13 WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS; 14 TAXATION AND REVENUE 15 DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF 16 NEW MEXICO; and UNITED STATES 17 OF AMERICA (IRS),
18 Defendants.
19 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY 20 Raymond Z. Ortiz, District Judge
21 Doherty & Silva, LLC 22 Lucinda R. Silva 1 Albuquerque, NM
2 for Appellee
3 The Law Offie of Erika E. Anderson 4 Erika Anderson 5 Albuquerque, NM
6 for Appellant
7 MEMORANDUM OPINION
8 VIGIL, Judge.
9 {1} Defendant Greg M. Trujillo has appealed from the district court’s order denying
10 his timely [RP 196, 208] motion to reconsider and denying his motions for an
11 extension of time and to stay the judgment. Unpersuaded that Defendant established
12 error in the district court’s rulings, we issued a notice of proposed summary
13 disposition, proposing to affirm. Plaintiff Bank of New York has responded to our
14 notice with a memorandum in support. Defendant has not responded to our notice and
15 the time for doing so has expired. See Rule 12-210(D)(2) NMRA (“The parties shall
16 have twenty (20) days from the date of service of the notice of proposed disposition
17 to file and serve a memorandum in opposition.”). The “[f]ailure to file a memorandum
18 in opposition constitutes acceptance of the disposition proposed in the calendar
19 notice.” Frick v. Veazey, 1993-NMCA-119, ¶ 2, 116 N.M. 246, 861 P.2d 287.
2 1 {2} For the reasons set forth in our notice, we affirm the district court’s order
2 denying Defendant’s motion to reconsider and denying his motions for extension of
3 time and to stay the judgment.
4 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 _______________________________ 6 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
7 WE CONCUR:
8 _____________________________ 9 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge
10 _____________________________ 11 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bank of New York v. Trujillo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-new-york-v-trujillo-nmctapp-2018.