This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 file d 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 Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4 vs. No. 31,634 5 JO B. HENDERSON-STILL; 6 MICHAEL P. STILL; U.S. BANK 7 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ND; 8 and JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE (true 9 names unknown), tenants, 10 Defendants-Appellants. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 12 C. Shannon Bacon, District Judge 13 Susan C. Little & Associates, P.A. 14 Susan C. Little 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellee 17 Jo B. Henderson-Still 18 Michael P. Still 19 Albuquerque, NM 20 Pro se Appellants 21MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 GARCIA, Judge. 2 Defendants Jo B. Henderson-Still and Mich ael P. Still appeal, pro se, from a 3 district court order denying their motion to dismiss a foreclosure complaint. We 4 issued a calendar notice proposing to affi rm. Defendants have responded with a 5 memorandum in opposition. We affirm. 6 A default foreclosure judgment was en tered on August 17, 2010. [RP 61] In 7 January 2011 Defendants filed a motion to set aside that judgment. [RP 120] The 8 motion was denied on June 28, 2011. [RP 242] Defendants then filed a motion to 9 dismiss the complaint, alleging that Plaintiff lacked capacity to sue. [RP 245] The 10 motion was denied. [RP 294] 11 As we indicated in our calendar notice, th e issue of a plainti ff’s capacity to sue 12 is waived if not raised by motion or answer. Hugh K. Gale Post No. 2182 VFW v. 13 Norris , 53 N.M. 58, 62, 201 P.2d 777, 779 (1949). “It is waived after answer [is] 14 filed.” Id . We are bound by this Supreme Court precedent. See Alexander v. 15 Delgado , 84 N.M. 717, 718, 507 P.2d 778, 779 (1973) (holding that Supreme Court 16 precedent controls). 172 As we stated above, a default judgment wa s entered in this case; thus no answer 1 was ever filed. We note, however, that Defendants did not raise the standing issue in 2 their motion to set aside the default j udgment and the accompanying brief. [RP 120- 3 21] Defendants acknowledge that they first raised the issue in their reply to the 4 response to their motion to set aside the default judgment. [MIO 4] That motion was 5 denied on June 28, 2011. [RP 242] We therefore conclude that Defendants had 6 waived their standing issue by waiting to raise it until after a post-judgment motion 7 had been denied. We also not e that the fact that they ar e pro se will not persuade us 8 to overlook the timeliness issue. See Newsome v. Farer , 103 N.M. 415, 419, 708 P.2d 9 327, 331 (1985) (“Although pro se pleadings are viewed with tolerance, . . . a pro se 10 litigant, having chosen to repr esent himself, is held to the same standard of conduct 11 and compliance with court rules, procedures , and orders as are members of the bar.” 12 (emphasis omitted)). 13 For the reasons set forth above, we affirm. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

16 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 17 WE CONCUR: 18

193 JAMES W. WECHSLER, Judge 1

2 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 3