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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING LP, 2 f/k/a Country Home Loans Servicing LP, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4

v. NO. 34,250 5 SALETAI P. TOLOUMU; KIMBERLY 6 R. TOLOUMU; JOHN DOE and 7 JANE DOE, (true names unknown), tenants, 8 Defendants-Appellants. 9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 10 Sarah M. Singleton, District Judge 11 Little, Bradley & Nesbitt, P.A. 12 Sandra A. Brown 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellee 15 Gleason Law Firm, LLC 16 Deirdre Gleason 17 Santa Fe, NM 18 for Appellants 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION 202 WECHSLER, Judge. 1
{1} Appellant Gregory Hutchins appeals from a district court denying his motion 2 to intervene for purposes of setting aside a foreclosure judgment. We issued a calendar 3 notice proposing to affirm. Plaintiff BAC Home Loans Servicing LP filed a 4 memorandum in support. [Ct. App. file at green tab] Appellant has filed a 5 memorandum in opposition. We affirm. 6
{2} Plaintiff filed a complaint for foreclos ure in October 2009. [RP 1] A default 7 judgment was entered in September 2011. [RP 60] In July 2012, Appellant’s attorney 8 entered an appearance on behalf of homeowners (Defendants Toloumu) and 9 Appellant, asserting that Appellant was now a real party in interest because he had 10 purchased the property, and therefore he could stand in the shoes of Defendants 11 Toloumu for purposes of these proceedings . [RP 77] Appellant filed a joint motion 12 with Defendants Toloumu to set aside the default judgment, alleging that Plaintiff 13 lacked standing to bring the underlying action. [RP 79] The motion was denied in 14 January 2013 and constituted a final order for purposes of filing a notice of appeal. Cf. 15 Grygorwicz v. Trujillo , 2009-NMSC-009, ¶ 8, 145 N.M . 650, 203 P.3d 865 (holding 16 that a foreclosure decree is final for purposes of appealing from the declaration of the 17 parties’ rights to the prop erty). Defendants did not appeal. Instead, in August 2014, 183 Appellant filed a motion to intervene so thathe could again challenge the foreclosure 1 judgment on the basis of standing. [RP 191, 194] 2
{3} As we stated in our calendar notice, Appellant should have appealed from the 3 district court’s January 2013 order denying the motion to set aside the default 4 judgment. Appellant argues that he had never been expressly allowed to intervene in 5 to the case. However, the district court never expressly denied Appellant’s attempt to 6 intervene into the case by standing in shoes of the original homeo wners. As such, we 7 believe that Appellant was informally allowed to intervene, and Appellant was 8 required to appeal the rejection of the standing argument at that time. Cf. New Mexico 9 Selling Corp. v. Crescendo Corp. , 1964-NMSC-180, ¶¶ 2-7, 74 N.M. 409, 394 P.2d 10 260 (observing a de facto intervention into civil proceedings even though the 11 formalities of intervention were not followe d). Because the standing issue has already 12 been litigated in this case, in that it was rejected by the denial of the motion to set 13 aside the judgment, the earlier ruling, Appe llant should have appealed that earlier 14 ruling, and may not now use Rule 1-060(B) NMRA as a substitute. Gedeon v. Gedeon , 15 1981-NMSC-065, ¶ 17, 96 N.M. 315, 630 P. 2d 267 (stating that “[i]t is well 16 established that a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b) is not 17 intended to extend the time for taking an app eal and cannot be used as a substitute for 18 an appeal.”). 194 {4} To the extent that we would accept Appellant’s argument that the district court 1 denied his motion to intervene in the earlier proceedings, Appellant should have 2 appealed and challenged that ruling, and, as part of that appeal, could have challenged 3 the merits of the standing issue. Because Appellant did not do so, we believe that the 4 district court properly denied his attempt to relitigate the issues at this time. 5
{5} For the reasons set forth above, we affirm. 6
{6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

__________ ______________________ 8 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 9

WE CONCUR: 10

________________________________ 11 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 12

________________________________ 13 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 14