1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: 3 Fi lin g D at e: Jun e 27, 201 8 4 N O. A -1 -C A -3 5454 5 FE DER

AL NA TIONA L MORTG AGE 6 ASSOCI ATI ON, 7 Pl ai nti ff

-Appe llant, 8 v
. 9 ST EP HE N C HI U LL I, 10 De fendant-Appellee. 11 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF SA NTAFE CO UN TY 12 Sa ra h M . S in gle to n, D ist ri ctJu dg e 13 Ro de y , Dick as on , Slo an , Aki n & Ro bb , P.A. 14 Edw ard Ricc o 15 Ch ar le s J. V igi l 16 Ch ar le s R
. H ughs on 17 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 18 fo r Appe llant 19 W alcott, H enry

& W insto n, P. C. 20 D ona ld A

. W al co tt 21 Charles V . H enry , I V 22 San ta Fe, NM 23 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 VIGIL, Judge. 3 { 1} Inthi s c as e the dis tr ic t cour t dism iss ed the co m

pla int to f or ec los e on a

not e an d 4 m ortg ag e br ou ght

by S un T ru st M ortga ge , I nc . ( SunT ru st) “ w ithpr ej udi ce ” as a 5 discovery

sanction. An a

ppeal from

the order of dism issal with prej udice was taken 6 but th en abandoned. In subsequ ent proceedings brou ght by the borrower , S tephen 7 Ch iul li, to en fo rc e the or de r, the dis trict co ur t expla ine d th at w he n it dis m iss ed

the 8 fo re cl osur e co m

pla int “ w ithpr ej udi ce ” it int en de d to e xti ngui sh a ll ri ght s S unT ru st 9 had und er the note and m ortgage. T he district court therefore ordered that no further 10 ac tio n c oul d be take n to e nf or ce the not e and m ortga ge . F ed er al N at ion al Mo rt ga ge 11 A sso ci at ion( Fanni e Ma e) , w ho w as subs tit ute d for SunT ru st a s th e pla int if f, appe al s. 1 2 Co nc lud i n g t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt ’ s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f i t s o r d e r o f d i s m i s s a l w ith 1 3 p r e j u d i c e w a s n o tman i f

e s t l y u n r e a s o n ab l e , w e a f f i rm. 14 BACKGRO UND 15 { 2} SunTrust filed a com pla i n t for f

oreclosure on Chiulli’s hom e. 16 Co nte m

por an eo usl y

w iththe c om

pla int , S unT ru st f

ile d no tic e tha t C hiu lli ’ s de bt 17 under the prom issory note was discharged in a C h ap ter 7 ca se in the United States 18 Bankr upt cy Co urt of the D istri ct of N ew Me xic o. T he re fo re , no cl ai m w as m ad e 19 ag ai nst

Ch iul li pe rs ona lly

under th e no te, a nd the c om pla int onl y sou ght a n in rem2

1 j udgm en t aga ins t the pr ope rty its el f to sat isf y the a m ount s c la im ed

und er the not e an d 2 m or tg ag e. Se e Ke

ple r v . Sla de , 199 5- N MS C- 035, ¶¶ 7- 8, 119 N
. M. 802 , 896 P
. 2d 4 82 3 (explaining t h at i n t h e event of defa ult on an underly ing no te, the m ortgagee has 4 ind ep en de nt r em ed ie s to sue on the not e or in re m a ga ins t the m ortga ge d pr ope rty to 5 sa tis fy the ind eb te dne ss) ; State v. Nunez , 200 0- N MS C- 013, ¶ 78, 129 N
. M. 63, 2 P
. 3d 6 264 (e xpl ai nin g that “ [a] n in rem ac tio n is dir ec te d .

. . a t r es olv ing the int er es ts, 7 cl ai m s, ti tle s, a nd r igh ts i n th at pr ope rty [, ] ” an d is in “ co nt ra dis tin ct ionto ‘ in 8 personam ’ actions which are directed against a person.” (em phasis add ed)). 9 { 3} SunT ru st’ s st andi ng w as in iss ue a t the out se t of the li tig at ion

. A lth oughthe 10 le nde r on the not e was Att es saE nte rp ri se s, I nc . , dba Cr es ce nt F inanc ia l S olu tio ns 11 (A tte ssa ) an d th e m ortga ge w a s i nf av o r o f M o r t g a g e E le ctro nic Re gis tr at ionS y ste m s, 12 Inc. (ME RS) as nom inee for the lender, SunTr ust alleged it was entitled to enforce 1 3 the n o t e a n dm o rt g a g e b y v i rtu e o f a s s i g n m e n t s a t t a c h e dt o t h e c o m p l a i n t . C h i u lli 14 denied the note and m ortgage had been properly assigned, and affir

m atively alleged 1 5 t h a tS u n T r

u s tl a c k e ds t a n d i n g t o b r i n g t h e s u i t . C h i u l l i a l s o f i l e dc o u n t e r c l a i ms 16 ag ai nst

S unT ru st f

or slande r of

ti tle , br ea chof

c ontract, br eac h of

the c ove na nt o f 17 good f ai th and f ai r de al in g, inte rf

er en ce w ithc ontra ct

ua l r el at ion s, f

ra ud, vio la tio n 18 of the U nf ai r Pr ac tic es A ct , vio la tio n of the F ai r Cr ed it Re portin g A ct , a nd v iol at ion 19 of the Fa ir D eb t C oll ec tio n P ra ct ic es A ct , w hic h m at er ia lly r el ie d onhis a lle ga tio ns3

1 tha t the a lle ge d a ssi gnm en t of the m ortga ge to SunT ru st w as m ad e by SunT ru st t o 2 its el f, w as im

pr ope r an d inef

fe ct ive , an d that the pr om iss or y not e w as not

ind or se d. 3 { 4} Ch iul li soug ht d isc ove ry f ro m S unT ru st s ee kin g in fo rm at ion an d 4 docum entation regarding the no te and m ortgage as well as t he assignm ent of the loan 5 and m ortgage from

Attessa to SunT ru s t . SunTrust obje cted to these discovery 6 re que sts a nd p ro du ced no d oc um en ta tio n c onc er nin g th e not e an d m ortga ge , or the 7 assignm ent of the loan from Attessa to SunT rust. Chiull i fi l ed a m otion to com pel 8 SunTrust to answer

the discovery

requests, w hich dist ri ct court Judge Sarah M. 9 Si ngl et on g rante d. Jud ge S ing le tonrul ed th at th e dis co ve ry r eque sts w er e cl earl y 10 relevant to the standing of SunTr ust to bring the suit, and ordered SunTrust to answer 11 interrogatories and produce docum ents. Spec ificall y, Judge Singleton ordered 12 SunT ru st t o answ er

int er ro ga tor ie s to ide nti fy

a nd p ro vid e co nta ct

inf orm at ionf

or 13 pe opl e w ithkno w le dge of the loan an d m ortga ge ; to an sw er the da te s of e m plo ym en t 14 of the pe rs on w ho s ign ed the as sig nm en t of m ortga ge an d ver if ie d th e int er

ro ga tor ie s; 15 to i de nti fy th e per son re spon sib le f or dir ec tin g and h av ing the a ssi gnm en t of 16 m ortga ge pr ep ar ed ; t o id entif y the pe rs on r es pons ibl e fo r fi lin g th e as sig nm en t of 17 m ortga ge ; t o iden tif

y the pe rs on at the or igi na l len de r w ho a uth or iz ed tr an sf er of the 18 loan; and t o pr ovi de inf orm at ionabout

the pe rs on a t M E RS w ho a uth or iz ed the 19 tr an sf er of the loan f

ro m the or igi na l l en de r. I n a ddi tio n, S unT ru st w as or de re d to4

1 pr oduc e al l of

it s f ile s onthe loan; an d a ll co ntr ac ts, a gr ee m en ts, c or re spon de nc e, or 2 co m m uni ca tio ns b etw ee n S un T ru st and A tte ssa r eg ar din g th e loan. 3 { 5} Af

ter the dea d l i ne im

posed byJudge Singl eton to answer the interr ogatories 4 p a s s e d , S u n Tru s t f

i l e d a mo t i o n s e e k i n g a s i x t y- d a y e x t e n s i o n o f t i me t o c o mp l y. 5 Ch iu ll i’s r es pons e inc lud ed am oti on f

or sanc tio ns, inc lud ing adis m iss al of 6 SunT ru st’ s c la im s w ithpr ej udi ce on the ba sis that a lth oughit ha d suff ic ie nt t im e to 7 do so, SunTrust had still not provided the discovery in violatio n of the court’ s order. 8 Su n Tr u s td i dn o tre s p o n dt o Ch i u l l i ’s m o t i o n , an dJ u d g e S i n g l et o n g ra n t ed Ch i u l l i ’s 9 m oti on. Ru lin g th at Ch iul li’ s unan sw er ed int er ro ga tor ie s and re que sts fo r pr oduc tio n 10 “ go to th e subs tance” of the claim s m ade by SunTr ust, Judge Singleto n ordered that 11 the com

plaint for foreclosure f

iled by SunTrust “ is hereby dism issed with prej udice” 1 2 a n dth a tt h e a f

f i rma t i v e d e f

e n s es as s ert edb y Su n T r

u s ta g a i n s tC h i u l l i ’s c o u n t e r c l a i ms 13 “ ar e he re by

dis m iss ed

. ” T he or de r al so v oid ed a ssi gnm en ts o f the m or tga ge to 14 SunTrust and Fannie Mae . T he eff ect of this order, filed on Septem ber 18, 2014 , w as 15 tha t S unT ru st’ s c la im s a ga ins t Chi ull i w er e dis m iss ed “ w ithpr ej udi ce ” but

S unT ru st 16 re m ai ne d inthe c as e as c ount er -d ef en da nt o n C hiu lli ’ s c ount er cl ai m s. 17 { 6} SunT ru st t

hr oughne wc ouns el , f

ile d a m oti on fo r re lie f fr om the or de r gr an tin g 18 Ch iul li’ s m oti on for sanc tio ns in dism iss ing SunT ru st’ s c om pla int w ithpr ej udi ce a nd 19 str iki ng i ts a ff

ir m at ive de fe nse s to Ch iul li’ s c ount er cl ai m s. A ft er fu ll br ie fi ng an d a5

1 he ar ing , Ju dg e Singl et on e nte re d an or de r de ny ing S unT ru st’ s m oti on. Jud ge 2 Singleton did, h o we v er, rule that the original order, shoul d not h ave voided 3 as sig nm en ts o f the m ortga ge to SunT ru st and F an nie Ma e. A n a m en de d or de r m ak ing 4 th is co rrec ti on was fi le d o n M arch 18 , 20 15
. 5 { 7} Whil e SunT ru st’ s m oti on f or r el ie f w as pe ndi ng, S unT ru st f ile d am otion o n 6 January

15, 2015, to subs titute Seter us, Inc. (Seterus) as the plaintiff in the case. In 7 supp ort of t he m otion SunTrust s tated that when it filed t he com plaint for fore closure, 8 it did so a s th e “ se rv ic er ” fo r the ow ne r of the m ortga ge , F an nie Ma e. H ow ev er , w hil e 9 the sui t w as pe ndi ng, Fanni e Ma e pur ch as ed the se rv ic ing r igh ts t o C hiu lli ’ s lo ana nd 10 the n transf

er re d the se rv ic ing ri ght s to S et er us. A s ac onse que nc e, S unT ru st a sse rt ed , 11 “ Se te ru s or

F an nie Ma e shou ld h av e subs tituted” a s th e pla int if f, w hic h ha d no t 12 occurred. At the hearing on the m otion on January 23, 2015, SunTr

ust orally am ended 13 the m oti on t o su

bst itu te Fanni e Ma e as pla int if f. W ithF an nie Ma e’ s c onse nt, a nd i ts 14 agreem ent to be bou nd bythe ear lier order dism issin g the com plaint with prej udice, 15 the m oti on w as gr an te d ina n or de r fi le d onMarc h 12 , 201 5. S unT ru st r em ai ne d in 16 the c as e as c ount er -d efendant t o C hiu lli ’ s c ount er cl ai m s. T he part ie s su bse que ntl y 17 stipu lated to a dism issal of Chiulli’s counterclaim s with prej udice, w ith the result that 18 al l the c la im s inthe c as e w er e ei the r re sol ve d or dis m iss ed

.6

1 { 8} Fanni e Ma e fi le d ati m el y not ic e of ap pe al on June 5, 2015 , ap pe al ing fr om the 2 order on sanction s dism issin g the com plaint for foreclosure w ith prejudice. How ever, 3 Fanni e Ma e did

not f ile adoc ke tin g st at em en t w iththi s C ourt and a ba ndon ed it s 4 ap pe al

. 5 { 9} This w as not the end of the case. Chiulli filed a m otion for post-j udgm ent relief 6 on S ep te m

be r 24, 201 5, a sse rt ing that F an nie Ma e w as vio la tin g the or de r dis m iss ing 7 the co m

pla int fo r fo re cl osur e w ith pr ej udi ce fi le d on Se pte m ber 1 8, 2 014, an d 8 re af fi rm ed in the a m en de d or de r fi le d onMarc h 18 , 201 5. T he m ot io n all eg ed : ( 1) 9 tha t F an nie Ma e, thr oughS et er us s en t C hiu lli p as t due ac co unt state m en ts i n 10 February , March, April, May , June, and July , 2015 ; (2) that the Julystatem ent showed 11 a tot al a m ount

due in the a m ount

of $87 , 796. 77 a s of

A ugus t 1, 201 5; ( 3) that C hiu lli 12 did not kno wif F an nie Ma e or Se te ru s w as re portin g a de lin que nc y to cr ed it re portin g 13 ag en ci es ; (4 ) that Chiulli attem pted to pay

taxes on the property , but w as told that 14 the y w er e al re ady

pa id and w oul d no t be a sse sse d a ga in unti l N ove m be r 2015 ; ( 5) 15 tha t C hiu lli r ec ei ve d an e sc ro wstate m en t sh ow ing tha t Fanni e Ma e ha d pa id t ax es on 16 the pr ope rty

in May 201 5, a nd ac co rd ing to the sta te m en t, Se te ru s in te nde d to pay the 17 ta xe s du e in N ove m

be r 2015 ; (6 ) tha t C hiu lli ha d ob ta ine d hi s own in sur an ce on the 18 pr op ert y ; an d ( 7) that C hiu lli did not kno wif F an nie Ma e int en de d f

or S et er us t o 19 pur ch as e ins ur an ce on the r es ide nc e. Ch iul li as ke d th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e nf

or ce it s7

1 order dism issin g the com plaint for foreclosure w ith prejudice and enjoin Fannie Mae 2 fr om c ont inu ing to se nd h im

a cc ount state m en ts, f

ro m a tte m pti ng t o in cur es cr ow 3 ch ar ge s f

or ta xe s and insuranc e, an d fr om re portin g any de lin que nc y

c ha rg es to cr ed it 4 re portin g a ge nc ie s. 5 { 10} Init s w ri tte n r es pons e, F an nie Ma e de nied tha t the or de r of dis m iss al w ith 6 pr ej udi ce pr ev en te d it fr om ac tin g as it did

. In m at er ia l pa rt , F an nie Ma e ar gue d th at , 7 notwithstand ing the order, it wa s free to initiate for eclosure proceedings in any court 8 of c om pe te nt j ur isd ic tio n “ fo r de fa ult s unde r the loan docu m en ts othe r than th ose in 9 the dism issed com

plaint[.] ” In re ply , C hiull i asserted the post-judgm ent relief he wa s 10 se ek ing w as ba se d onthe or de r “ th at [Fan nie Ma e’ s] c la im s purs ua nt t o th e 11 pr om is so ry

no te an d m or tg ag e were d is m is se d wi th pre jud ic e.” 12 { 11} The hearing on Chiulli’s m otion wa s held before Judge Singleton , who iss ued 13 the original as well a s t h e amend ed order dism issin g the com plaint for foreclosure 14 w ithpr ej udi ce . A ft er

he ar ing a rg um en ts f

ro m the r es pe ct ive part ie s, Jud ge S ing le ton 15 ru le d: 16 It

w as m y int en tio n w ith the pr ior or de r to say that [ SunT ru st] w as not 17 goi ng to be all ow ed to enf or ce the not e thr oughf

or ec los ur e or

thr ough 18 a sui t onthe not e, a nd tha t’ s w hy the dis m iss al w as w ithpr ej udi ce . A nd 19 I did

that be ca use the dis co ve ry

that w as w ith he ld w en t t o th e hear t of 20 [S unT ru st’ s] abil ity to pr ove that i t ha d ar igh t t o r ec ove r. A nd s inc e it 21 w ith he ld the inf orm at ionon tha t t opi c, it w as not goi ng t o be a llo w ed to 22 pur sue the r em edy that i t soug ht . An d it w as m y int en tio n th at

in the8

1 fu tur e , [ S u n T r

u s t ] s h o u l d n o t b e a l l o w e d t o p u r s u e t h e r e m e d yof 2 foreclosure or sue on the sam e note. 3
. . . . 4 Fanni e Ma e is n ot a llo w ed to br in g act ionf or f or ec los ur e or

to pur sue 5 [a ] n a ct ionon the no te be ca use of the pr ior pla int if f’ s c ondu ct

in thi s 6 law sui t, a nd tha t’ s what w as int en de d a s asanc tio n f or the f ai lur e to 7 c o mp l y wi t h d i s c o v e ry. 8 Judg e Singleton then entere d a w ritten order direc ting: (1) “ [Fannie Mae ] is enjoined 9 from continu ing to attem pt to collect a debt f

rom Chiulli re garding the [p] rom issory 10 [n ] ote an d [m ] ortga ge . . . inc lud ing se ndi ng C hiu lli a cc ount state m en ts, se ndi ng 11 es cr ow ac co unt sta te m en ts, an d re portin g Ch iul li to cr ed it ag en ci es ”; (2 ) “ [F an nie 12 Ma e] is en

j oin ed f ro m c ont inu ing to atte m

pt t o in cur escro w a ccount c ha rg es to 13 ch ar ge to Ch iul li, suc h a s ta xe s and i nsur an ce ”; a nd ( 3) “ Ch iul li is t o r ef und pa ym en ts 14 for taxes” that w ere m ade by Fannie Mae after the order of dism issal with prej udice 15 wa s filed on Septem

ber 18, 2014. Fannie Mae appeals fr om this order. 16 DISC US SION 17 { 12} Fan n ie Mae does not , and cannot in this appeal, challenge the discovery 18 sanction order dism issin g the com plaint for foreclosure action with prej udice or that 19 it is b ound

by the sanc tio n im

pose d onit s pr ed ec es sor , S unT ru st. Co urts h av e 20 in he ren t au th or it y

to reg ul at e th e p art ie s an d p ro ceed in gs be fo re t he m . Ci tyof R osw el l 21 v. Holm es , 1939-NMS C-062, ¶ 6 , 4 4 N.M
. 1, 96 P. 2d 70 1. A t the core of j udicial9

1 au tho ri ty

is “ [a c ourt’ s] inh erent po we r to i m pose avari ety

of sanc tio ns o n bo th 2 l i t i g a n t s a n d a t t o rn e ys i n o r d e r t o r e g u l a t e t h e i r

d o c k e t , p r o mo t e ju d i c i a l e f f i c i e n c y, 3 and deter fri v o l o us filing s.” State ex rel. N.M . H ighway & Transp. De

p’t v. Baca , 4 19 95 -NMSC -0 33, ¶

¶ 11, 20, 120 N
. M. 1, 896 P
. 2d 1 148 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks 5 an d c itatio n om itt ed ). T his inc lud es the pow er an d righ t to dism iss ac om pla int w ith 6 pr ejud ic e fo r fai li ng to co m pl y wit h p ro ced ur al rul es or c ou rt o rd ers . Se e Lu jan v . Ci ty 7 of A lbu que rque , 2003 -N MC A -1 04, ¶ 10, 134 N
. M. 207, 75 P. 3d 4 23 (re co gni zi ng 8 tha t di str ic t c ourts h av e suc h po w er ); Be verly v. Conquis tado res, I nc. , 19 75 -NMCA9 070, ¶¶ 7, 1 6, 88 N. M. 119 , 537 P. 2d 10 15 (hold ing th at a district court has the power 10 to d ism iss ac om

pla int w ithpr ej udi ce f

or vio la tin g a dir ec t co urt or de r to s uppl y the 11 nam e of a witness). When Fannie Mae a ban d o ned its appeal from the order 12 di sm issing the c om

pla int f or f or ec los ur e w ithpr ej udi ce , it w ai ve d it s r igh t t o 13 ch al le nge w he the r the sanc tio n of dis m iss al w ithpr ej udi ce w as a n a ppr opr ia te 14 sa nc ti on , it s s co pe or l eg al effe ct . Se e B runa ci ni v

. Ka va nagh , 19 93 -NMCA- 15 7, ¶ 15 28, 117 N
. M. 122 , 869 P.2 d 821 ( “ [A ] n unre ve rs ed j udgm en t i s f

ina l be tw ee n th e 1 6 p a rt i e s a s t o a l l m a t t e r s t o w h i c h t h e j u d g m e n tr e l a t e s. ”) ; se e als o A m . L eg ion P ost 17 No. 49 v. Hughes , 199 4- N MC A -1 53, ¶ 2, 120 N
. M. 255 , 901 P. 2d 1 86 ( co nc lud ing 18 th atcro ss -ap pe al was aba nd on edforfai lu re t o fi le a do ck et in g s ta te m en t).10

1 { 13} Wha t is be fo re us in th is ap pe al is Ju dg e Si ng le to n’s i nt erp ret at io n o f he r own 2 or de r dis m iss ing the co m pla int fo r fo re cl osur e w ith pr ej udi ce w hic h w as m ad e w ith in 3 the context of a m otion seeking to enforce that order . W hen a district court concludes 4 that a dism issal w ith pre j udice is w arranted, particularly a com plaint for forec losure, 5 the order “ shou ld clearly define w hat the dism issal with prej udice m eans—its im pact 6 on particular parties and p articular claim s, for exam ple—so that the effe ct o f the order 7 is c le ar to the part ie s, to us i n th e eve nt of an ap pe al , a nd t o atr ia l c ourt i n th e ev en t 8 of fut ure litigation.” G re en T re e Se rv ic ing

, LLC v . Co pe , 201 7 M E 68, ¶

22, 158 A
. 3d 9 931 (e m

pha sis om itt ed ). T he or de r he re is am bigu ou s bec au se Jud ge S ing le tondid 10 not e xpl ai n w ha t he r int en t w as in the or de r its el f dis m iss ing the c om pla int f or 11 foreclosure “ with prej udice.” 12 A. Stand ard of R eview 13 { 14} The interpr etation of a court order pre sents a questio n of law which w e re view 14 de nov o. B e na v i de

z v . B e na v idez , 2 00 6- N MC A -1 38, ¶ 7, 140 N
. M. 637 , 145 P
. 3d 15 117. “ The sam e rules of interpre tation appl y in construin g the m eani ng of a court 16 or de r or

j udgm en t a s inascerta ini ng the m eanin g of oth er w ri tte n in str

um en ts. T he 17 plain m eaning of the language u s ed i s the prim ary indicator of intent.” Id . ¶ 8 18 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). “ Whe re the langua ge of a j udgm en t 19 orde cree is cle ar an d u n a m bi gu ou s, i t m

us t s ta nd an d b e en fo rced as i t s pe ak s.”11

1 A l lr e d v . N

. M

. D e p ’ t o f T rans p. , 201 7- N MC A -0 19, ¶

41, 388 P
. 3d 9 98 ( om iss ion , 2 alterations, internal quotation m arks, and citation om itted). H owever , when an order 3 or j udgm en t ha s so m e am

big uity or unc er ta inty , it m ay be c onstru ed

in the li ght

of the 4 pl ead in gs , ot he r po rti on s of the jud gm en t, fin di ng s, and co nc lu si on s of law. See 5 G re er v . J ohns on , 1971-NMS C-127, ¶ 8, 83 N. M
. 3 3 4 , 4 91 P.2d 1145 (noting th at 6 w he re aj udgm en t c ont ai ns an a m big uity or unc ertai nt y , th at

langua ge m

ust be 7 co nstru ed

“ in the li ght

of the ple ad ing s, the r em ai nin g po rt ion s of the j udgm en t, the 8 fi ndi ngs of

f ac t and c onc lus ion s of

law ”) ; D unha m v . Sti tzb er g , 19 48 -NMSC -0 37 , ¶ 9 44, 53 N
. M. 81, 201 P. 2d 1000 ( sta tin g th at the “ ple ad ing s, f

ind ing s and c onc lus ion s, 10 m ay be resorted to if nec essary to interpret or explain an am bigu ous judgm ent”), 11 ov errul ed on othe r ground s by I n re Co nle

y’ s W ill , 1954 -N MS C- 112, 58 N
. M. 771 , 12 276 P. 2d 9 06. I n th is r eg ar d, the j udge w ho issu es the or de r or j udgm en t is inthe be st 13 posi tio n to c lari fy an y am big uity in the or de r be ca

use tha t j udge is fam ili ar

w iththe 14 en ti re rec or d a nd all th e ci rcu m st an ces un de r whi ch it was i ss ue d. See B auer v. B auer , 15 60 A. 3d 95 0, 955 (Conn. 2013). “ For that re ason, s ubstant ial defere nce is accor ded 1 6 t o a c o u r t ’s i n t er

p re t at i o n o f i t s o wn o rd er ” a n d“ we wi l l n o td i s tu rb a t ri al co u rt ’s 17 clarific ation of an am

bigu ity in its own order unless the c ourt's interpretation of that 18 order is m anifestly

unreasonable.” Id . (om is si on , in te rn al quo tatio n m ar ks a nd c ita tio n 19 om it te d)

. See P acheco v. Cohen , 200 9- N MC A -0 70, ¶ 12, 146 N
. M. 643, 213 P. 3d 7 9312

1 (a gr ee ing that the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s int er pr et at ion of

it s own or de r w as not

a n a buse of 2 di sc ret io n)

. 3 B. A na lys is 4 { 15} Fanni e Ma e co nte nds tha t the post -j udgm en t or de r im pr ope rl y e nj oin s it f ro m 5 enforcing the note and m ortgage with respect to bre aches or defaults occurring after 6 those alleged in the original fore closure action. Spec ifically , F annie Mae argues that 7 the dis m iss al w ithpr ej udi ce “ doe s no t b ar s u bse que nt e nf

or ce m en t e ff

orts i n th e ev en t 8 of a fu tur e def

au lt. ” Insup port of

it s arg um en t, F an nie Ma e re fe rs us t o Sing leton v. 9 G re ym ar A sso cs . , 88 2 S o. 2 d 1 00 4 (F la . 20 04 ). 10 { 16} Sin gle ton is a ca se on the re s ju dic at a ef fe ct of a n or de r dis m iss ing am ortga ge 11 foreclosure com

plaint w ith pre

j udice on a subs equent c om plaint for forec losure. Re s 12 j udicata is also called claim preclusion, and we use both term s interchangeably here. 13 “ T he doc tr ine of

r es j udi catais fo unde d onpr inci pl es of f ai rn es s and j ust ic e, a nd 14 en su res fin al i t y, ad va nc es jud ic ia l ec on omy , and av oi ds pi ecemeal l it ig at io n. To 15 ac hie ve the se pur

pose s, r es j udi ca ta ba rs lit iga tio n of cla im s that w er e or c oul d have 16 been advanced in an earlier proceeding.” Fogelson v. W allace , 20 17 -NMCA17 089, ¶ 16, 406 P. 3d 10 12 (alteration, internal quotation m arks, and citations o m itted). 18 Re s j udi cat a wil l bar a subs eque nt a ct ionw he re : “ (1 ) the re w as af ina l j udgm en t i n 19 an earl ie r act io n, (2 ) th e ear li er jud gm en t was on th e m eri ts , (3 ) th e pa rti es in th e two13

1 suits are the sam e, and (4) the ca use of action is the sam e in b oth su its.” Id

. ¶ 17 2 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

. 3 { 17} T he r es j udi catae ff ec t of the or de r of

dis m iss al w ithpr ej udi ce is not be fo re us 4 in this appe al

. T ha t i s, thi s a ppe al doe s no t arise fro m a di sm iss al on r es j udi cata 5 gr ound s of

ac om pla int fo r fo re cl osur e fi le d subs eque nt to the or de r of dis m iss al w ith 6 pr ejud ic e. Se e B ay vi ewL oan Se rv ic ing , LLC v . B art le tt , 201 4 M E 37, ¶ ¶ 17 n
. 6- 18, 7 87 A
. 3d 7 41 ( not ing th at in an appe al f ro m a n or de r dis m iss ing ac om pla int f or 8 fo re cl osur e wit h pr ejudi ce a s asanc tio n, the r es j udi ca tae ff ec t of the or de r is n ot 9 be fo re t h e ap p e l l a t e c o u rt )

. W e a r e t h e r e f o r e n o t r e qu i r e d t o d e c i d e w h i c h l i n e of 10 ca se s to f

ol lo ww he re the c la im

is tha t an e ar lie r dis m iss al of ac om pla int f or 11 fo re cl osur e w ithpr ej udi ce pr ec lud es , on re s ju dic at a gr ound s, the fi lin g of a se co nd 12 com plaint for foreclosure. One line of c ases concludes that the d ism issal of a 13 co m pla int f or f or ec los ur e w ith pr ej udi ce doe s not bar the fi lin g of a se co nd c om pla int 14 ba se d on the fa ilure to m ak e a tim el y pa ym en t af te r the dis m iss al , ev en if

both su its 15 se ek to ac ce le rate al l the pa ym en ts o n th e not e be ca use the y vie we ac h f

ai lur e to m ak e 16 a tim ely

paym ent on the note as a separate breac h. E xam ples are Sin gle ton , 882 S o. 2d 17 at 108 8, a nd A

folabiv . A tla nti c M

ort g. & I nv . Co rp. , 849 N
. E
. 2d 1 170, 1175 ( In d. Ct
. 18 App . 20 06 ). Se e al

so In re Rog er

s To wn se nd

& Th oma s, PC , 773 S
. E
. 2d 1 01, 104 -0 8 19 (N .C. Ct. App. 2015 ) (holding th at a r ule b ar ri ng a third action after tw o volu ntary14

1 dis m iss al s of

the sa m e cl ai m s do es not bar a thi rd

f or ec los ur e ac tio n whe re the 2 pe ri ods of

c la im ed de fa ult s are dif

fe re nt)

. A se co nd l ine of ca se s conc lud es tha t i f the 3 m ortgagee elects to trigger the acce leration clause o f th e note, the obligation to pay 4 ea chins ta llm en t m er ge s in to o ne obl iga tio n to pay the e nti re ba lanc e due unde r the 5 not e, a nd a

dis m iss al of

the c om pla int f or f or fe iture w ithpr ej udi ce bars the f ili ng o f 6 a second suit seeking the sam e relief. Exam ples are Jo hnso n v . Sam son Co nstr. Co rp. , 7 1997 ME 220 , ¶

¶ 3- 4, 704 A
. 2d 8 66, a nd U

. S. B ank Na t’ l A ss’ n v. G ull otta , 120 O hio 8 St
. 3d 3 99, 2008-O hio -6 268, ¶ ¶ 3- 5; 3 0- 32, 899 N
. E
. 2d 9 87. T he dif fe ri ng v ie w s, 9 publ ic pol ic ie s, a nd r am if ic at ion s are dis cu ssed in the m aj or ity a nd d iss en tin g 10 opi nio ns i n Ce nla r F

SB v . M ale nfa nt , 201 6 V T 93, 203 V t. 23, 151 A
. 3d 7 78. 11 { 18} A ga in, the appe al be fo re us is fr om the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s in te rp re ta tio n and 12 en fo rc em en t of its or de r of dis m iss al w ith pr ej udi ce . W e the re fo re co nstru e Fanni e 13 Ma e’ s r ef

er en ce to Sin gle ton as s up p o rt fo r i t s a s s e r t i o n t h at t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 14 int er pr et at ionof

it s own or de r of

dis m iss al w ithpr ej udi ce is “ m an if es tly 15 unreasonable.” See B auer , 60 A.3dat 9 57 . W e are no t p ers ua de d. 16 { 19} In co nstruin g her o rder, Judg e Sing leton stated that by her ruling, she intended 1 7 t h at Su n Tr

u s t “ wa s n o t g o i n g t o b e al l o we dt o p u rs u e t h e r emed y t h at i ts o u g h t .” We 18 loo k to the c om

pla int to de te rm ine w ha t the r em edy is tha t S unT ru st w as se ek ing

. T he 19 co m pla int f or f or ec los ur e al le ge s th at

Ch iul li sig ne d a pr om iss or y not e pr om isi ng t o15

1 pay $163 ,200 in equal m onth ly installm ents until paid, and that the note was sec ured 2 by a m ortgage. T he com

plaint claim s that Chiulli failed to pay pursuant to the not e, 3 that a notice of default and dem and for cure of the default had been m ade as re quired 4 by the not e an d m ortga ge , a nd tha t C hiu lli fai le d or refus ed to cure the de fa

ult

. 5 S un T r us t f ur t he r a l l e ge d t hat t he unpa i d pr i nc i pa l ba l a nc e on t he no te w as 6 $158 , 245. 21 w ithint er es t, a nd tha t unde r the m ortga ge it ha d the opti on o f de cl ar ing 7 all sum s owed under the note im m ediately due. SunTrust asserted it “ hereby exerc ises 8 thi s op tio n. ” T he rem ed y pu rsue d by S unT ru st w as to fo re cl ose the li enon the 9 property

securing the note, that the property b e s o l d , an d that SunTrust have a 10 j udgm en t i n r em

in the tot al a m ount of the unpa id p ri nc ipa l ba lanc e in the a m ount of 11 $158 , 245. 21 p lus int er es t un til f ull y pa id. L ooki ng t o th es e ple ad ing s to de te rm ine 12 wha t t he rem ed y

is th atSu nTru st was s eek in g i n t h e c o mp l a i nt forfor ecl os ur e, we 13 co m e to the und en ia

ble c onc lus ionthat it w as inv oki ng the a cc el er at ionc lause in the 1 4 c o n tr a c t d o c u m e n t s t o o b t a i n a n in rem j udgm en t f or the e nti re unp ai d ba lanc e due 15 on th e co nt ract , pl us in te res t. Th at is the r el ie f it w as se ek ing , a nd tha t w as the c la im 16 tha t w as dis m iss ed

w ithpr ej udi ce . T he re is no f urthe r de bt unde r the not e an d 17 m ortga ge , be ca

use the c la im fo r the e nti re a m ount ha s a lr ea dy

be endis m iss ed

w ith 18 pr ej udi ce . S unT ru st ( an d no wF an nie Ma e) a re the re fo re pr ec lud ed fr om se ek ing a ny 19 re lie f unde r the not e an d m or tga ge a ft er e ntr y of the or de r of

dis m iss al

. T his16

1 interpretation of the pleadings is m ore consistent with the reasoning o f Jo hnso n , 704 2 A
. 2d 8 66 and G ull ott

a , 2 0 0 8

- O h i o - 6 2 6 8
. I n l o o k i n g t o t h e p l e a d i n g s t o c l a r i f y wh at 3 re m edy w as dis m iss ed “ w ithpr ej udi ce ” as Gree r , 197 1- N MS C- 127, a nd D unha m , 4 1948 -N MS C- 037, te ac h, w e cannot co nc lud e that Judge S ing le ton ’ s in te rp re ta tio n of 5 her order is “ m anifestly unreasonable.” 6 { 20} We h o l dt h at J u d g e S i n g l et o n ’s ru l i n g t h att h e o rd erd i s m i s s i n g Su n Tr u s t ’s 7 com plaint for for e c l os ur e “ w i th prej udice” precludes SunTr ust (and now Fannie Mae) 8 from pursuin g any

action on the m ortgage and note is no t m anifestly unreasonable. 9 CON CLU SION 10 { 21} The post-j udgm ent order enforc ing th e order of dism issal with prej udice as 11 am en de d is a ff

irm ed

. 12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 13 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , Ju dg e
14 WE CO NCUR:

15

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 16 JU LI E J . V A R GA S, Ju dg e

17

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 18 ST EP HE N G. F R EN C H, Ju dg e