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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 fr om 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 US BANK NATIONAL 2 ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for 3 RASC 2005-KS10, 4 Plaintiff-Appellee, 5 v. No. 33,651 6 ANNA MARIE SALAZAR, 7 a/k/a ANNAMARIE SALAZAR, 8 and JOHN SALAZAR, 9 Defendants-Appellants. 10 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TAOS COUNTY 11 Jeff McElroy, District Judge 12 The Castle Law Group LLC 13 Elizabeth Dranttel 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Anna Marie Salazar 17 John C. Salazar 18 Pro Se Appellants 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION 202 SUTIN, Judge. 1 {1} Defendants appeal from a combined default judgment, summary judgment, and 2 decree of foreclosure. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, 3 proposing to affirm. Defendants have f iled a memorandum in opposition. After due 4 consideration, we remain unpers uaded. We therefore affirm. 5 {2} With respect to their second and fourth issues, we understand Defendants to 6 continue to complain of the district court’s alleged failure to notify them via mail of 7 certain events. [DS 1; MIO 1-2] However, insofar as there has been no showing of 8 prejudice, these irregularities suppl y no basis for relief on appeal. See generally El 9 Paso Elec. Co. v. Real Estate Mart, Inc ., 1982-NMCA-117, ¶ 31, 98 N.M. 570, 10 573-74, 651 P.2d 105 (“Every error does not warrant reversal, and we will not reverse 11 absent a showing of prejudice.”). 12 {3} With respect to their first issue, Defendants clarify their intent to challenge the 13 sufficiency of Plaintiff’s showing of default and entitlement to foreclose. [MIO 1] 14 However, as we previously observed, docum ents attached to Plaintiff’s complaint 15 established its standing and documents attached to Plaintiff’s motion for summary 16 judgment supplied the requisite evidence of Defendants’ default. [RP 14, 36, 58-69] 17 See Bank of New York v. Romero , 2014-NMSC-007, ¶ 17, 320 P.3d 1 (observing that 18 standing in a foreclosure action may be established by demonstrati ng ownership of the 193 note and the mortgage as of the time of the filing of the complaint); Alliance Health 1 of Santa Teresa, Inc. v. Nat’l Presto Indus., Inc., 2007-NMCA-157, ¶¶ 14-16, 143 2 N.M. 133, 173 P.3d 55 (observing that documen ts attached to a motion for summary 3 judgment supplied competent ev idence of payment history); see generallyRule 11- 4 1003 NMRA (providing that duplicates are admi ssible to the same extent as original 5 documents, “unless a genuine que stion is raised about the original[s’] authenticity or 6 the circumstances make it unfai r” to admit the duplicates). 7 {4} By their third issue, Defendants suggest that a hearing on their merits should 8 have been conducted, based on perceived “lack of ev idence,” “discrepancies,” and 9 concerns about “authenticity of each documen t[.]” [MIO 1-2] However, the district 10 court’s election to rule on the matter without conducting a hearing was well within its 11 discretion, particularly in light of Defendants’ failure to file any substantive 12 responsive pleading below. See generally Sanchez v. Church of Scientology of 13 Orange Cnty. , 1993-NMSC-034, ¶ 16, 115 N.M. 660, 857 P.2d 771 (“It is within the 14 district court’s discretion when considering a motion for summary judgment to hold 15 an oral hearing.”). 16 {5} Relatedly, by their fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth issues, 17 Defendants continue to assert that matters outside the record and arguments never 18 presented below undermine Plaintiff’s assertion of standing and suggest that their 194 request for reinstatement was handled improperly. [MIO 2] However, as we 1 previously explained, in light of Defe ndants’ failure to develop any of these 2 arguments below, as well as the absence of anything in the record to support 3 Defendants’ theories, these matters present no basis for relief on appeal. See Los 4 Vigiles Land Grant v. Rebar Haygood Ranch, LLC , 2014-NMCA-017, ¶ 20, 317 P.3d 5 842 (observing that where the evidence in th e record indicated that the plaintiff 6 organization had standing, and where ther e was no evidence in the record to the 7 contrary, the defendants’ unsupported standing argument did not provide a basis on 8 which to attack subject matter jurisdiction); see generally Lujan ex rel. Lujan v. 9 Casados-Lujan , 2004-NMCA-036, ¶ 20, 135 N.M. 285, 87 P.3d 1067 (“Bedrock 10 principles of appellate law dictate that matters not of record present no issue for 11 review . . . and that error must be clearly demonstrated.”). Defendants’ lack of 12 familiarity with the Rules of Procedure does not require a different result. [MIO 1-2] 13 See generally Bruce v. Lester , 1999-NMCA-051, ¶ 4, 127 N.M. 301, 980 P.2d 84 14 (observing that pro se litigants must comp ly with the rules of the court and will not 15 be treated differently than litigants with counsel). 16 {6} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in this Opinion and in the notice of proposed 17 summary disposition, we affirm. 18 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 195 __________________________________ 1 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 2

WE CONCUR: 3

_______________________________ 4 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 5

_______________________________ 6 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 7