Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

SRMOF 2009-1 TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GURUNEIL SINGH KHALSA GOODMAN, JAGAT KHALSA, OCCUPANTS, WHOSE TRUE NAMES ARE UNKNOWN, if any, THE UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF GURUNEIL SINGH KHALSA GOODMAN A/K/A GURUNEIL SINGH KHALSA GOODMAN, if any, and THE UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF JAGAT KHALSA, if any, Defendants-Appellants.

MICHAEL E. VIGIL

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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 SANTA FE COUNTY
Sarah M. Singleton, District Judge

Castle Stawiarski, LLC
Elizabeth Mason
Michael Neil
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee Guruneil Singh Khalsa Goodman
Santa Cruz, NM
Jagar Khalsa
Espanola, NM
Mukhtiar S. Khalsa
Santa Cruz, NM
Pro Se Appellants












MEMORANDUM OPINION VIGIL, Judge.

Guruneil Singh Khalsa Goodman (Guruneil), Jagat Khalsa (Jagat), and Mukhtiar S. Khalsa (Mukhtiar), have appealed from the denial of their motion to set aside a default judgment in the underlying foreclosure action. We filed a notice of proposed summary disposition on March 29, 2012. As to Jagat, we proposed to affirm the default judgment; as to Guruneil, we proposed to reverse the default judgment; and as to Mukhtiar, we proposed that he was not a proper party to the appeal. On April 20, 2012, Guruneil and Mukhtiar filed a memorandum in support of the proposed summary disposition. No memorandum in opposition has been filed, and the time for doing so has long since passed.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________


MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge


WE CONCUR:
Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SRMOF 2009-1 Trust v. Goodman
(Aug 1, 2012)