From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Rooyen

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Feb 14, 2013
NO. 32,341 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2013)

Opinion

NO. 32,341

02-14-2013

DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, as Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT M. VAN ROOYEN and LISA P. MARSTON-VAN ROOYEN, Defendants-Appellants.

Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A. William R. Keleher Jennifer L. Bradfute Albuquerque, NM for Appellee Albuquerque Business Law, P.C. Patrick J. Griebel Heather S. Jaramillo Albuquerque, NM for 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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
Beatrice J. Brickhouse, District Judge
Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A.
William R. Keleher
Jennifer L. Bradfute
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee Albuquerque Business Law, P.C.
Patrick J. Griebel
Heather S. Jaramillo
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VANZI, Judge.

Defendants/Appellants, Robert M. Van Rooyen and Lisa P. Marston-Van Rooyen, appeal from the district court's order denying Defendants' emergency motion to vacate default judgment and special master sale ("motion to vacate"). [DS 2, 5, RP 323] We issued a notice on January 7, 2013, proposing to summarily affirm. Defendants had twenty days from the date of service of this notice to serve and file a memorandum in opposition. Rule 12-210(D)(3) NMRA. Defendants have failed to file either a memorandum in opposition to our proposed summary disposition or a request for an extension of time. On January 28, 2013, Plaintiff/Appellee, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, filed a memorandum in support of our proposed summary disposition. We have previously held that "[f]ailure to file a memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance of the disposition proposed in the calendar notice." Frick v. Veazey, 116 N.M. 246, 247, 861 P.2d 287, 288 (Ct. App. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of Defendants' motion to vacate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

LINDA M. VANZI , Judge

WE CONCUR:

________________
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
_________________
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge


Summaries of

Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Rooyen

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Feb 14, 2013
NO. 32,341 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2013)
Case details for

Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Rooyen

Case Details

Full title:DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, as Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellee, v…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Date published: Feb 14, 2013

Citations

NO. 32,341 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2013)