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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST 2 COMPANY AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE 3 FOR THE ENCORE CREDIT RECEIVABLES 4 TRUST 2005-3, 5 Plaintiff-Appellee, 6
v. No. A-1-CA-37129 7 CHRISTEE THOMSON STREETT f/k/a 8 CHRISTEE T HALL a/k/a CHRISTEE T STREETT 9 a/k/a CHRISTEE SANDIA THOMSON STREETT, 10 Defendant-Appellant, 11 and 12 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY-INTERNAL 13 REVENUE SERVICE, TAXATION AND REVENUE 14 DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 15 and WILLIAM HALL, 16 Defendants. 17 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 18 Nan G. Nash, District Judge 19 Rose L. Brand & Associates, PC 20 Eraina Marie Edwards 21 Albuquerque, NM 222 for Appellee 1

Christee Thomson Streett 2 Albuquerque, NM 3 Pro Se Appellant 4 MEMORANDUM OPINION 5 HANISEE, Judge. 6 {1} As we have set forth in our previous order denying stay and our calendar notice, 7 Defendant Christee Thomson Streett timely appeals only from the district court’s 8 order granting the writ of assistance. Because Defendant’s docketing statement 9 challenged only the foreclosure judgment underlying the writ of assistance, we issued 10 a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm. Defendant has 11 responded to our notice with a memorandum purporting to cite reasons to dismiss the 12 writ of assistance. We have considered Defendant’s response and remain unpersuaded 13 that Defendant has established error in th e district court’s issuance of the writ of 14 assistance. 15 {2} Defendant’s response to our notice continue s to allege that she is the owner of 16 the property and that Plaintiff Deutsc he Bank National Trust Company did not 17 establish standing to enforce the note on the property or Plaintiff procured the 183 judgment by fraud. [MIO 2] These are matters relevant to the May 2015 foreclosure 1 judgment, which this Court specifically in structed Defendant were not permitted in 2 this appeal that is timely only from the distri ct court’s writ of assistance. [Order 3; CN 3 2] Defendant also overlooks this Court’s reference to Deutsche Bank National Trust 4 Co. v. Johnston , 2016-NMSC-013, ¶ 34, 369 P.3d 1046, clarifying that standing in a 5 foreclosure action is prudential, not a ju risdictional requirement, and the lack of 6 standing does not render a foreclosure judgment voidable under Rule 1-060(B) 7 NMRA. [CN 2] Defendant does not refer this Court to any authority indicating that 8 her attacks on the underlying foreclosure judgment, from which she did not timely 9 appeal, can provide relief from the writ of assistance. See ITT Educ. Servs., Inc. v. 10 Taxation & Revenue Dep’t , 1998-NMCA-078, ¶ 10, 125 N.M. 244, 959 P.2d 969 11 (stating that this Court will not consider propositions that are unsupported by citation 12 to authority). We continue to be unpersuaded that she may pursue such attacks on the 13 underlying foreclosure judgment at this late date. 14 {3} Defendant makes no argument relative to the issuance of the writ of assistance 15 separate from any of the preceding orders of the district court. We therefore affirm. 16 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 17

_______________________________ 18 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 194 WE CONCUR: 1

___________________________ 2 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 3

___________________________ 4 JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge 5