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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATING TRUST , 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3
v. NO. 35,567 4 JASON B. ERRETT, 5 Defendant-Appellant, 6 and 7 STATE OF NEW MEXICO TAXATION 8 and REVENUE DEPARTMENT and 9 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 10 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 11 Defendants. 12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 13 C. Shannon Bacon, District Judge 14 Rose L. Brand & Associates PC 15 Eraina M. Edwards 16 Stephen Kowal 17 Albuquerque, NM 18 for Appellee 192 Stribling Law Firm 1 Thomas B. Stribling III 2 Albuquerque, NM 3 for Appellant 4 MEMORANDUM OPINION 5 VIGIL, Chief Judge. 6 {1} Defendant Jason B. Errett (Errett) seeks to appeal from the district court’s order 7 granting LSF9 Master Participation Trust’ s (the Trust’s) motion to reinstate this 8 foreclosure action against him. [DS 2; RP 64, 66] In our notice of proposed 9 disposition, we proposed to dismiss the appealfor lack of a final order. Errett filed a 10 memorandum in opposition, which we haveduly considered. Unpersuaded, we 11 dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order. 12 {2} “In civil cases, this Court has jurisdic tion over, among other things, ‘any final 13 order after entry of judgment whic h affects substantial rights[.]’” Khalsa v. Levinson , 14 1998-NMCA-110, ¶ 12, 125 N.M. 680, 964 P. 2d 844 (quoting NMSA 1978, § 39-3-2 15 (1966)). “Whether an order is a ‘final order’ within the meaning of the statute is a 16 jurisdictional question that an appellate c ourt is required to raise on its own motion.” 17 Id. Generally, “an order or judgment is not considered final unless all issues of law 18 and fact have been determined and the case [i s] disposed of by the trial court to the 19 fullest extent possible.” Clinesmith v. Temmerman , 2013-NMCA-024, ¶ 35, 298 P.3d 20 458 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 213 {3} In this case, Errett seeks to appeal from the order granting the Trust’s motion 1 to reinstate the case based on his contention that the motion was untimely, and 2 therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the motion. [DS 3; see also CN 3 3; MIO 1-2] However, as discussed in our notice of proposed disposition, this appeal 4 is not properly before this Court because the order reinstating the foreclosure action 5 did not resolve all of the matters in the cas e to the fullest extent possible. [CN 3] In 6 his memorandum in opposition, Errett continues to argue that the district court should 7 have denied the untimely motion to reinstate on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction. 8 [MIO 1-2] We are not persuaded. 9 {4} We note that Errett does not argue and the district c ourt’s order does not include 10 the necessary language that would allow this Court an opportunity to exercise its 11 jurisdiction under Rule 12-203 NMRA and NMSA 1978, Section 39-3-4 (1999) 12 (providing for interlocutory appeals) or any other exception to the rule that only final 13 orders are appealable. As a result, this appeal is premature and arises from a non-final 14 order entered by the district court. 154 {5} For the reasons stated in this opinion and in our notice of proposed summary 1 disposition, we dismiss for lack of a final order. SeeThornton v. Gamble , 1984- 2 NMCA-093, ¶ 15, 101 N.M. 764, 688 P.2d 1268 (“ If we do not have jurisdiction, we 3 must dismiss.”). 4

{6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

_______________________________ 6 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 7
WE CONCUR : 8

_________________________________ 9 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 10

_________________________________ 11 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 12