This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 WORLD SAVINGS, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 33,085, 33,277 (consolidated) 4 LESLIE FINCHER, a/k/a Leslie 5 A. Fincher, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 and 8 ANITA REIDEL, DONALD L. SHAFFER, 9 4 DIAMOND CATTLE CO., INC., d/b/a 10 Diamond Cattle Company, and BANK OF 11 AMERICA, N.A., 12 Defendants. 13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 14 Carl J. Butkus, District Judge 15 Scott & Kienzle P.A. 16 Paul W. Spear 17 Albuquerque, NM 18 Jeanne Y. Sohn 19 Albuquerque, NM 20 for Appellee 212 Leslie A. Fincher 1 Albuquerque, NM 2 Pro se Appellant 3 MEMORANDUM OPINION 4 ZAMORA, Judge. 5 {1} Defendant Leslie Fincher appeals anorder denying her Rule 1-060(B) NMRA 6 motion for relief from a judgment of foreclosure. In our notice of proposed summary 7 disposition, we proposed to affirm. In respons e to this Court’s notice, Fincher has filed 8 a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. As we do not find 9 Fincher’s arguments persuasive, we affirm. 10 {2} Fincher raises a number of issues related to the foreclosure of a note and 11 mortgage. In this Court’s notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to 12 hold that because the only order that Finc her timely appealed was the order denying 13 her Rule 1-060(B) motion, this was the only matter that she wa s entitled to appeal. 14 See James v. Brumlop , 1980-NMCA-043, ¶¶ 6, 9, 94 N.M. 291, 609 P.2d 1247. We 15 proposed to hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the 16 motion. 17 {3} In Fincher’s memorandum in opposition, she does not provide any legal 18 authority or describe any facts that w ould demonstrate that this Court’s proposed 19 disposition should not be made. [MIO 1-3] Instead, she primarily discusses the 203 difficulties that she has faced in handling this case without an attorney and describes 1 various personal challenges that have added to these diffi culties. [MIO 1-3] While we 2 recognize that, without legal training, Finc her may not have been able to represent 3 herself as well as an attorney would have , this is not a basis for relief on appeal. See 4 Bruce v. Lester , 1999-NMCA-051, ¶ 4, 127 N.M. 301, 980 P.2d 84 (stating that pro 5 se litigants must comply with the rules and orders of the court and will not be treated 6 differently than litigants with counsel). As Fincher’s memorandum in opposition fails 7 to demonstrate any defect in our proposed anal ysis, we conclude that the district court 8 did not err in denying her Rule 1-060(B) motion. See Hennessy v. Duryea , 9 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly 10 held that, in summary calendar cases, th e burden is on the party opposing the proposed 11 disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”). 12 {4} Therefore, for the reasons stated hereand in our notice of proposed summary 13 disposition, we affirm. 14 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

______________________________ 16 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 17 WE CONCUR: 184 __________________________________ 1 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 2

__________________________________ 3 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 4