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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 2 As Trustee for Mastr. Adjustable 3 Rate Mortgages Trust 2004-7, 4 Plaintiff-Appellee, 5

v. NO. A-1-CA-36937 6 BRENDA C. PRICE, 7 Defendant-Appellant, 8 and 9 CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, USA, 10 N.A.; HAWK MECHANICAL, LLC; 11 and PEOPLES BANK, 12 Defendants. 13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TAOS COUNTY 14 Jeff McElroy, District Judge 15 Murr Siler & Accomazzo, P.C. 16 Jamie G. Siler 17 Denver, CO 18 for Appellee 19 Stephen Ira Natelson 20 Taos, NM 212 for Appellant 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION 2 VANZI, Judge. 3 {1} Defendant Brenda Price seeks to app eal following the entry of an order 4 quantifying an award of attorney fees and costs. We previously issued a notice of 5 proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to dismiss on grounds that the 6 appeal was not timely filed. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition, which 7 we have duly considered. Because we remain unpersuaded, we dismiss the appeal. 8 {2} As described at greater length in the notice of proposed summary disposition, 9 [CN 2-5] the district court’s order of February 14, 2017, awarding summary judgment 10 to Plaintiff and incorporating a decree of foreclosure, constituted a final judgment. 11 See Kelly Inn No. 102 v. Kapnison , 1992-NMSC-005, ¶ 17, 113 N.M. 231, 824 P.2d 12 1033 (“[T]he initial judgment declaring the rights of the parties in the mortgaged 13 premises and the decree that the mortgage d property be sold . . . is final and 14 appealable for thirty days after its entry. ”). However, Defendant did not file her of 15 notice of appeal until December 2017, roughly nine months beyond the applicable 16 deadline. Dismissal is warranted under the circumstances. See Santa Fe Pac. Trust, 17 Inc. v. City of Albuquerque , 2012-NMSC-028, ¶ 31, 285 P.3d 595 (“An untimely 183 appeal will not be excused when the appellant is responsible for not filing a notice of 1 appeal on time and there are no unusual circumstances warranting excusal.”). 2 {3} In her memorandum in opposition, Defendant focuses on a motion that she 3 filed in May 2017, in which she requested th at the district court overturn its prior 4 award of summary judgment to Plaintiff. [M IO 4-5] Defendant characterizes this as 5 a motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 39-1-1 (1917), 6 which she contends should have effectivel y extended the deadline for filing notice of 7 appeal. [MIO 4-5] However, as we prev iously observed, [CN 6-7] if Defendant’s 8 motion is characterized as a Section 39-1-1 motion, it was untimely, and therefore 9 ineffective either as a vehicle for seeki ng reconsideration on the merits or as a 10 mechanism for extending the time within which to file notice of appeal. See§ 39-1-1 11 (providing that district courts have jurisdiction for thirty days after entry of judgment, 12 and for such further time as may be nece ssary to pass on a motion directed to the 13 judgment filed within that period); Rule 12-201(D)(1) NMRA (“If any party timely 14 files a motion that has the potential toaffect the finality of the underlying 15 judgment . . ., the full time prescribed in this rule for the filing of the notice of appeal 16 shall commence to run and be computed from the filing of an order expressly 17 disposing [thereof].” (emphasis added )). Although Defendant contends that our 18 concern about the timeliness of the motion wa s not “preserved” at the district court 194 level, [MIO 4] it is nevertheless a proper consideration, given its jurisdictional 1 implications. See Smith v. City of Santa Fe , 2007-NMSC-055, ¶ 10, 142 N.M. 786, 2 171 P.3d 300 (stating that an appellate court may raise a question of jurisdiction on 3 its own motion, and lack of jurisdiction at any stage must be resolved before 4 proceeding further); and see, e.g., Ortiz v. Shaw , 2008-NMCA-136, ¶ 10, 145 N.M. 5 58, 193 P.3d 605 (illustrating). We therefore d ecline to give the motion broader effect 6 than it is due. 7 {4} In her memorandum in oppositi on, Defendant further s uggests that the relevant 8 authorities, including Kelly Inn , should not control the outcome in this case, in light 9 of the “complexity” of identifying final j udgments, and because these authorities were 10 handed down long before the mo rtgage crisis, such that they fail to take various 11 “public interest factors” into account, including the difficulties that many pro se 12 litigants face. [MIO 2-3] We disagree. This is not a marginal case. And the law in this 13 specific area is clear. We decline to disregard it. See generally Aguilera v. Palm 14 Harbor Homes, Inc. , 2002-NMSC-029, ¶ 6, 132 N.M . 715, 54 P.3d 993 (recognizing 15 that the Court of Appeals is bound by Supreme Court precedent); Bruce v. Lester, 16 1999-NMCA-051, ¶ 4, 127 N.M. 301, 980 P.2d 84 (“[A] pro se litigant is not entitled 17 to special privileges because of his pro se status. . . . [A d]ef endant, who has chosen 18 to represent himself, must comply with th e rules and orders of the court, and will not 195 be entitled to greater rights than those litigants who employ counsel.” (citations 1 omitted)). 2 {5} Accordingly, for the reasons statedabove and in the notice of proposed 3 summary disposition, the appeal is summarily dismissed. 4 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

_______________________________ 6 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 7
WE CONCUR: 8

_________________________ 9 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 10

_________________________ 11 EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge 12