This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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
NATIONSTAR LLC AS SERVICER 2 FOR FDIC AS RECEIVER FOR 3 AMTRUST BANK, 4 Plaintiff-Appellee, 5
v. NO. 33,923 6 JONATHAN P. KELLEN, 7 Defendant-Appellant. 8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TAOS COUNTY 9 Jeff McElroy, District Judge 10 Rose L. Brand & Associates, P.C. 11 Eraina Edwards 12 Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellee 14 Joshua R. Simms, P.C. 15 Joshua R. Simms 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellant 18 MEMORANDUM OPINION 192 WECHSLER, Judge. 1 {1} Defendant Jonathan Kellen appeals fro m a district court order denying his 2 motion to reconsider. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has 3 responded with a memorandum in opposition. [Ct. App. file at red clip] Plaintiff has 4 filed a memorandum in support. [Ct. App. file - top doc] We affirm. 5 {2} Plaintiff Nationstar’s predecessor-in-intere st filed a complaint for foreclosure 6 in January 2009. [RP 1] Judgment was entered in February 2011. [RP 120] This 7 judgment was final for purposes of filing a notice of appeal. See Grygorwicz v. 8 Trujillo , 2009-NMSC-009, ¶ 8, 145 N.M. 650, 203 P.3d 865 (holding that a 9 foreclosure decree is final for purposes of appealing from the declaration of the 10 parties’ rights to the property). Defendant did not appeal. Instead, in March 2014, 11 Defendant filed a motion to reconsider th e merits of the 2011 judgment. [RP 371] The 12 district court denied the motion to reconsid er, and Defendant app ealed to this Court. 13 [RP 437, 440] 14 {3} In light of the delay in filing the moti on for reconsideration, we construe it as 15 a motion to set aside the judgment under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA. See Century Bank v. 16 Hymans , 1995-NMCA-095, ¶ 10, 120 N.M. 684, 905 P.2d 722 (stating that where the 17 motion is of a type authorized by both Rule 1-060 and NMSA 1978, Section 39-1-1 18 (1917), this Court is permitted to consid er a motion as having been brought under 19 Rule 1-060(B) if it would be untimely under Section 39-1-1). We review the denial 203 of the motion for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g. , James v. Brumlop , 1 1980-NMCA-043, ¶ 9, 94 N.M. 291, 609 P.2d 1247 (“An appeal from the denial of 2 a Rule 60(b) motion cannot review the propriety of the judgment sought to be 3 reopened; the trial court can be reversedonly if it is found to have abused its 4 discretion in refusing to grant the motion.”). 5 {4} Among other grounds for affirming the district court, our calendar notice relied 6 on that court’s conclusion that the moti on lacked merit. In his memorandum in 7 opposition, Defendant argues that Nationstar di d not have an interest in the property 8 when the judgment was entered in February 2011. [MIO 3] Defendant relies on a 9 statement in Bank of New York v. Romero , 2014-NMSC-007, ¶ 17, 320 P.3d 1, to the 10 effect that the bank in thatcase had the burden of establishing “timely ownership” of 11 the note in order to establish its authorityto pursue a foreclosure action. Reading the 12 Romeroopinion as a whole, however, it is clear that the Supreme Court’s mention of 13 ownership was not intended to legally distinguish that concept from status as a holder 14 of a negotiable instrument under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). As Romero 15 states in subsequent paragr aphs, under the UCC, a holder of an instrument is entitled 16 to enforce that instrument. Id. ¶¶ 20-21. 17 {5} In this case, as Defendant concedes [MIO 3], Nationstar’s predecessor-in18 interest (Amtrust Bank), who was the plaintiff in the 2011 action, assigned its interest 19 to Nationstar in July 2013. [RP 334] As su ch, Nationstar received whatever interest 20 that Amtrust Bank had in Defendant’s property. Because there is no dispute that 214 Amtrust Bank had presented a blank indorsement on the original note, and was the 1 holder of the note, it had standing in that action. Romero , 2014-NMSC-007, ¶¶ 20-21. 2 As a result, the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion. 3 {6} For the reasons set forth above, we affirm. 4 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

____________ ___________ _________ 6 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 7
WE CONCUR: 8

________________________________ 9 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 10

________________________________ 11 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 12