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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 BANK OF NEW YORK 2 MELLON TRUST COMPANY, 3 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS 4 GRANTOR TRUSTEE OF THE 5 PROTIUM MASTER GRANTOR 6 TRUST, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8 v. NO. 35,710 9

SCOTT ALLAN JORDAN and 10 TRACEY A. JORDAN, 11 12 Defendants-Appellants, 13 and 14 CRYSTAL MELISSA LOVATO, 15 ROSEMARY ANNE JORDAN, 16 NEW MEXICO EDUCATORS 17 FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, THE 18 UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF CRYSTAL 19 MELISSA LOVATO, IF ANY, and 20 THE UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF 21 ROSEMARY ANNE JORDAN, 22 IF ANY, 23 Defendants. 242 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TORRANCE COUNTY 1 Matthew G. Reynolds, District Judge 2

Holland & Hart, LLP 3 Larry J. Montano 4 Santa Fe, NM 5 for Appellee 6 Scott Allan Jordan 7 Estancia, NM 8 Pro Se Appellant 9 MEMORANDUM OPINION 10 VANZI, Chief Judge. 11
{1} Defendants, who are self-represented litigan ts, appeal from the district court’s 12 order denying their motion for reconsideration of the district court’s denial of 13 Defendants’ motion for relief from judgment. Unpersuaded by De fendants’ docketing 14 statement that they demonstrated error, we issued a notice of proposed summary 15 disposition, proposing to affirm. Defendants have filed a memorandum in opposition 16 to our notice. We have duly consid ered Defendants’ response and remain 17 unpersuaded. We, therefore, affirm. 183 {2} Defendants’ docketing statement listed ten issues, which broadly contested the 1 district court’s rulings on various motions and mostly disputed matters involving 2 Plaintiff’s standing. [DS 3-5] In our effort toaddress all of their concerns, we set forth 3 three principles we considered dispos itive of their appeal. Defendants’ lengthy 4 response to our notice largely ignores our an alysis, pursues all ten issues, and persists 5 in their challenge of Plaintiff’s standing. This does not persuade the Court that our 6 proposed analysis was incorrect. 7
{3} We briefly reiterate the grounds for affirmance. First, Defendants waived their 8 ability to challenge Plaintiff’s standing on app eal to this Court by the failure to timely 9 appeal from the district court’s previous final order of October 22, 2013, [RP vol. 6 10 1242] which denied Defendants’ timely moti on that sought reconsideration of the 11 judgment of foreclosure. SeeRule 1-059(E) NMRA (“A motion to alter, amend, or 12 reconsider a final judgment shall be filed not later than thirty (30) days after entry of 13 the judgment.”); Rule 12-201(D)(1) NMRA (explaining that timely motions for 14 reconsideration or a Rule 1-060(B) NMRA motion filed within thirty days of the 15 challenged order extends the time for filing a notice of appeal until an order is entered 16 expressly disposing of the motion). Our review is limited to whether Defendants 17 established grounds for relief from the foreclosure judgment under Rule 1-060(B). 184 {4} Second, a judgment is not voidable under Rule 1-060(B)(4) NMRA for lack of 1 standing. See Deutsche Bank Nat’ l Trust Co. v. Johnston , 2016-NMSC-013, ¶ 34, 369 2 P.3d 1046 (clarifying that standing in a foreclosure action to enforce a promissory 3 note is prudential, not a jurisdictional re quirement, and the lack of standing does not 4 render a foreclosure judgment voidable under Rule 1-060(B)). Because standing 5 cannot be the basis for the collateral attack under Rule 1-060(B), we do not consider 6 Defendants’ continued challengeto Plaintiff’s standing. See Johnston , 2016-NMSC7 013, ¶ 34. 8
{5} Third and lastly, to the extent that Defe ndants’ issues relate to the authenticity 9 of the loan documents or to the Truth in Lending Act, the Un fair Practices Act or other 10 affirmative claims of wrongdoing, we are notpersuaded for the reasons persuasively 11 set forth in Plaintiff’s response of March 21, 2016: these issues are not properly before 12 us in this collateral attack insofar as th ey relate to standing; these issues are not 13 properly before us insofar as violations of the various statutes should have been raised 14 as counterclaims in the foreclosure proceeding; Defendants’ rescission claim is not 15 properly before us insofar as it is time-barred; and Defendants’ authenticity arguments 16 were unsupported. [RP vol. 8 1780-90] Our notice invited Defendants to clearly state 17 the legal or factual reasons they believe Plaintiff’s res ponse is incorrect and where in 18 the record it shows they preserved these reasons in district court. Defendants’ 19 response has not clearly established any error. 205 {6} For the reasons stated in this opinion and in our notice, we affirm the district 1
court. 2

{7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 3

__________________________________ 4 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 5 WE CONCUR: 6

_________________________________ 7 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 8

_________________________________ 9 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge 10