This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STANDAGE FARMS, INC., 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 30,912 9 LUSK ONION, INC., 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY 12 David P. Reeb, Jr., District Judge 13 Law Office of George Dave Giddens, P.C. 14 Denise Trujillo 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellee 17 Behles Law Firm, P.C. 18 Eric N. Ortiz 19 Jennie Deden Behles 20 Albuquerque, NM 21 for Appellant 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION 23 VIGIL, Judge. 242 Defendant has appealed from the distri ct court’s order denying its motion to 1 stay registration and enforcement of a fo reign judgment. Defendant also filed a 2 motion in this Court to stay the judgmen t or alternatively set a value for bond under 33 Rule 1-062 NMRA. We issued an order holding the motion in abeyance pending 1 calendaring because it was not clear to thisCourt that Defendant’s appeal was from 2 a final, appealable order. Defendant file d a docketing statement in this Court and the 3 record proper, but did not specifically address any of the finality concerns we 4 expressed in our order. S till unconvinced that the order re fusing to stay registration 5 of the foreign judgment was final and appealable, we issued a notice of proposed 6 summary disposition, proposing to dismiss for lack of finality. Defendant filed a 7 response to our notice and persuaded us thatthe district court’s order was sufficiently 8 final and that the district court’s ruli ng was erroneous. We were not persuaded, 9 however, that the district court improperly denied Defendant’s motion for stay, and 10 we refused to set a bond amount. We i ssued a second notice of proposed summary 11 disposition, proposing to reverse and to deny the motion for stay. 12 Plaintiff filed a response to our sec ond notice proposing reversal, arguing that 13 our first notice was correct and the district court’s order is non-final and opposing 14 summary reversal. Defendant filed a memorandum in reply to Plaintiff’s response and 15 also continues to argue thatthe district court improperl y denied its motion for stay. 16 We have considered the parties’ responses . We remain persuaded that the district 17 court did not err by refusing to stay the j udgment pending appeal. Therefore, we deny 18 Defendant’s motion for stay or set a bond amount filed in this Court on December 15, 194 2010. We also remain persuade d that the district court’s order is sufficiently final for 1 appeal and that the district court erred. Therefore, we reverse the district court and 2 remand for consideration of the jurisdictional matter on the merits. 3 Finality 4 In response to our second notice, Plaintiff argues that our first notice was 5 correct in proposing to hold that the distri ct court’s order denying Defendant’s motion 6 to stay domestication or to vacate the fore ign judgment was non-final. Plaintiff agrees 7 that the district court’s order did not cont ain the requisite decretal language and did 8 not require the parties to take any further action. [Plaintiff’s MIO to 2nd CN 1] 9 Plaintiff does not assert, however, that it cannot now enforce the foreign judgment 10 against Defendant since the district court re fused to stay it. Also, Plaintiff does not 11 refer us to any authority that addresse s the statutory grounds we relied upon in our 12 second notice. Without authority and without any indication from Plaintiff about what 13 else is required for Plaintiff to pursue the money judgment against Defendant, we 14 believe that the district court’s order is sufficiently final for appeal. 15 Motion for Stay or Set Bond Amount 16 As we have stated, Defendant moved for stay of judgment in district court and 17 seeks review of the district court’s denial of the stay in this C ourt pursuant to Rule 12- 18 207 NMRA. “Although a stay pending appeal is a substantive right, this right is 195 contingent upon the appellant posting a satisfactory bond. The posting of the bond is 1 the procedural mechanism by which an appellant secure s the right to stay.” Grassie 2 v. Roswell Hosp. Corp. , 2008-NMCA-076, ¶ 8, 144 N.M. 241, 185 P.3d 1091. 3 Defendant did not post a supersedeas bond. Th erefore, we cannot say that the district 4 court erred by denying Defendant’s motion for stay. Also, it is not our role to 5 determine the appropriate bond amount for Defe ndant to post in district court. See, 6
e.g. , Rule 1-062(D) (“The stay is effective when the supersedeas bond is approved by 7 the district court.”). Defendant has not referred this Court to any authority to support 8 a stay without the posting of a bond or to support our authority determine the 9 appropriate bond amount. As a re sult, Defendant’s motion for stay is hereby denied. 10 Jurisdictional Issue 11 In response to our second notice, Plaintiff states that it disagrees with Defendant 12 that the district court refused to considerDefendant’s jurisdicti onal challenge to the 13 foreign judgment on its merits. [Plaintiff’s MI O to 2nd CN 2-3] Plaintiff asserts that 14 at the hearing on the motion to stay registration of the foreign judgment, Plaintiff 15 presented evidence of the affidavit of service and summons, showing that Defendant 16 was personally served with the complaint and had sufficient time to object to 17 jurisdiction. [Id. 2] Also, Plain tiff asserts that it presented evidence 186 to the district court that, under Oregon rule s, personal jurisdicti on over Defendant was 1 proper in Oregon due to the fact that the act arose out of a promise by Defendant to 2 deliver goods or receive goods in Oregon. [Id. 2] 3 Based on the arguments in Plaintiff’s pl eadings, the arguments revealed by the 4 short tape log, and the distri ct court’s bare order, we are persuaded that the district 5 court did not rule on Defendant’s challe nge to the foreign judgment on the grounds 6 of fraud and lack of jurisdiction. [RP 33-40, 60-62, 64] See State v. Calanche , 91 7 N.M. 390, 392, 574 P.2d 1018, 1020 (Ct. App. 1978) (stating that factual recitations 8 in the calendaring documents filed in this Court are accepted as true unless the record 9 on appeal shows otherwise). We are persua ded that the district court ruled on the 10 grounds argued by Plaintiff—that Defendant cannot collaterally attack the Oregon 11 judgment and should have asserted its defenses in the Oregon court. [RP 36-39, 61- 12 62] We agree with Defendant that Plain tiff and the district court were incorrect. 13 Fraud and lack of jurisdiction are two grounds on which a party may collaterally 14 attack a foreign judgment and “destroy th e full faith and credit owed a foreign 15 judgment.” Jordan v. Hall , 115 N.M. 775, 778, 858 P.2d 863, 866 (Ct. App. 1993). 16 As we stated in our notice, not all fore ign judgments are entitled to full faith and 17 credit. See Conglis v. Radcliffe , 119 N.M. 287, 289, 889 P. 2d 1209, 1211 (1995). A 18 judgment debtor may collaterally attack th e validity of a foreign judgment “on one of 197 the grounds that justifies the denial of full faith and credit, such as lack of jurisdiction, 1 lack of due process, or extrinsic fraud.” Id. In Conglis , our Supreme Court expressly 2 stated that 3 in any effort to avoid enforcement of a judgment filed pursuant to 4 Section 39-4A-3, a judgment debtor is limited to grounds traditionally 5 recognized as sufficient to avoid th e res judicata effect of a foreign 6 judgment; for example, lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction of 7 the rendering court, l ack of due process, fraud in procurement (extrinsic 8 fraud) , or other grounds making the judgment invalid or unenforceable. 9 Id. (emphasis added). 10 In district court, Defendant moved to vacate the default judgment entered by the 11 Oregon court for lack of personal jurisdiction and fraud, alleging specific facts to 12 support these claims. [RP 24-26, 47-59] See id. (stating that in order to have a 13 hearing on the substance of a claim that foreign judgment should be set aside, the 14 judgment debtor “must set forth a credible factual basis to support the asserted legal 15 basis upon which the debtor seeks to avoid the enforcement of the judgment”). The 16 tape log shows that, at the hearing, the district court did not reach the merits of 17 Defendant’s defenses and rule d that Defendant should haveasserted the defenses to 18 the Oregon court. [RP 61-62] Because fraud and lack of jurisdiction are two grounds 19 on which a party may collaterally attack a foreign judgment, wereverse and remand 20 for the district court to consider th e merits of Defendants’ defenses. See Jordan , 115 21 N.M. at 778, 858 P.2d at 866. 228 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

_______________________________ 2 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4

_________________________________ 5 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge 6

_________________________________ 7 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 8