Opinion
NO. 35,697
11-22-2016
BOKF, N.A., a National Banking Association d/b/a BANK OF OKLAHOMA, as Successor in Interest by Merger to BANK OF OKLAHOMA, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROY A. METZGAR, YVONNE M. METZGAR, and EQUIFIRST CORPORATION, Defendants, and STEVEN L. GILMORE, Putative Intervener-Appellant.
Leverick & Musselman, LLC Richard M. Leverick Albuquerque, NM for Appellee Steven L. Gilmore Albuquerque, NM Pro Se Putative Intervener-Appellant
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Nan G. Nash, District Judge Leverick & Musselman, LLC
Richard M. Leverick
Albuquerque, NM for Appellee Steven L. Gilmore
Albuquerque, NM Pro Se Putative Intervener-Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI, Judge. {1} Putative Intervener-Appellant Steven L. Gilmore (Appellant) filed the instant appeal following the entry of an order denying his motion to intervene. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Appellant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we affirm. {2} As we previously observed, the ruling on the motion to intervene may have constituted either a discretionary exercise of the district court's inherent authority to regulate the proceedings, or a decision on the merits. Appellant's memorandum in opposition is wholly unresponsive to our proposed summary disposition with respect to these matters. Accordingly, we adhere to our initial assessment. {3} In his memorandum in opposition Appellant reiterates argument advanced at the district court level pursuant to Rule 1-060(B) NMRA, by which he seeks to attack the validity of a judgment and sale previously rendered in the underlying foreclosure action. [MIO 1-13] However, as we previously observed, insofar as Appellant was not a party to that action and was denied intervention, he lacks standing to advance further argument on the merits. See, e.g., Gullo v. Brown, 1971-NMSC-034, ¶ 8, 82 N.M. 412, 483 P.2d 293 (holding that an appellant lacked standing to attack a previously entered decree, given that he was not a party to it and had no right which was affected by it at the time of its entry). Once again, Appellant's memorandum fails to address this concern. As a result, we remain unpersuaded that the argument is properly before us. {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm.
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ _________
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
WE CONCUR:
/s/ _________
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge /s/ _________
M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge