Opinion
A-1-CA-41526
10-16-2024
EDWARD BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DHARMA KALSA a/k/a DHARMA SINGH KHALSA a/k/a KHARRMA SINGH KHALSA, Defendant-Appellant, and PARMATMA KHALSA, GURU DAYA KAUR KHALSA, CLERK OF U.S. DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, WAYNE ALAN DRIZIN AND MARINA RONDELL, Defendants.
Rose Ramirez & Associates, P.C. Eraina M. Edwards Albuquerque, NM for Appellee Dharma Singh Khalsa Española, NM Pro Se Appellant
Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in Odyssey.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY Maria E. Sanchez-Gagne, District Court Judge
Rose Ramirez & Associates, P.C. Eraina M. Edwards Albuquerque, NM for Appellee
Dharma Singh Khalsa Española, NM Pro Se Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ZACB4KY A. IVES, Judge
{¶1} Defendant appeals from a summary judgment and order authorizing a foreclosure sale. In this Court's notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition to that disposition, which we have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.
{¶2} In his memorandum, Defendant continues to argue that when Plaintiff deposited a promissory note with the district court pursuant to LR1-203 NMRA, he lost possession and thus standing to enforce the note. [MIO 1-4; DS 4] Our notice proposed, however, that the district court appropriately applied Rule 1-025 NMRA. [CN 3] See Rule 1-025(C) (allowing actions to be continued by the original party, notwithstanding a transfer of interest). Defendant has not asserted any new facts, law, or argument that persuade us that our notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 ("Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law."); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that "[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact," and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. We therefore refer Defendant to our analysis therein.
{¶3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we summarily affirm.
{¶4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR: J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge