This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6

LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL BANK, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 31,427 9 MAX URBAN and UNA ZAKAS, 10 Defendants-Appellants. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 12 Barbara J. Vigil, District Judge 13 Jurgens & With, P.A. 14 James R. Jurgens 15 Santa Fe, NM 16 for Appellee 17 Max Urban 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 Pro Se Appellant 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 WECHSLER, Judge. 22 Pro se Defendants appeal an order denying their motion for relief from 232 judgment pursuant to Rule 1-060(B)(5) and (6) NMRA (“Motion”). We proposed to 1 affirm in a notice of proposed summary disposition, and Defe ndants have filed a 2 timely memorandum in opposition. Weremain unpersuaded by Defendants’ 3 arguments and therefore affirm the district court’s order denying their Motion for 4 relief from judgment. 5 Standard of review 6 We review the district court’s decision on whether to grant relief pursuant to 7 Rule 1-060(B) NMRA for abuse of discre tion unless the only issue presented is one 8 of law. Kinder Morgan CO2 Co., L.P. v. State of N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 9 2009-NMCA-019, ¶ 9, 145 N.M. 579, 203 P.3d 110. “An abus e of discretion occurs 10 when a ruling is clearly contrary to the logical conclusions demanded by the facts and 11 circumstances of the case.” Sims v. Sims , 1996-NMSC-078, ¶ 65, 122 N.M. 618, 930 12 P.2d 153. 13 Discussion 14 On August 17, 2009, the district court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff, 15 Los Alamos National Bank, and entered a decree of foreclosure (“Summary Judgment 16 Order”). [RP 508, 512; DS 2] Defendants appealed the Summary Judgment Order, 17 and this Court issued a memorandum opinion affirming in Case No. 29,905, with 18 mandate issuing on June 9, 2010. [RP 774-781] On October 15, 2010, Defendants 193 filed their Motion for relief from judgment, [RP 783] and the district court denied the 1 Motion on May 27, 2011. [RP 867-868] 2 In denying Defendants’ Motion, the district court found that, to the extent 3 Defendants were seeking to revisit the Court of Appeals decision in Case No. 29,905, 4 such review was precluded because Defendants failed to file a petition for writ of 5 certiorari with the Supreme Court. [RP 867- 868] We proposed to affirm this finding 6 in our notice of proposed disposition. 7 In their memorandum in opposition, De fendants do not rebut the analysis 8 contained in our previous notice. [MIO 1- 2] Instead, they argue that this Court can 9 treat a notice of appeal and docketing stat ement as a petition for writ of certiorari. 10 [MIO 2] Even if this may be true in certain circumstances, in this case Defendants 11 failed to file any documents with the Supreme Court to seek review of this Court’s 12 opinion in Case No. 29,905. Cf. Rule 12-502(B) NMRA (stating that a petition for 13 writ of certiorari must “be filed with the S upreme Court clerk within thirty (30) days 14 after final action by the Court of Appeals”). Therefore, for the reasons set forth in our 15 notice of proposed summary disposition, weaffirm the district court’s finding that 16 Defendants’ failure to filea timely petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme 17 Court precludes the district court from re visiting this Court’s affirmance of the 18 Summary Judgment Order. 194 In our notice, we also proposed to affirm the district court’s findings that 1 Defendants failed to make a sufficient s howing entitling them to relief under Rule 1- 2 060(B)(5) and (6). [RP 868] We noted that Defendants failed to make a showing that 3 they were entitled to relief pursuant to Ru le 1-060(B)(5) because they failed to show 4 why enforcement of the Summary Judgment Order was no longer equitable. Cf. 5 Edens v. Edens , 2005-NMCA-033, ¶ 23, 137 N.M. 207, 109 P.3d 295 (declining to 6 set aside portions of a settlement agreemen t pursuant to Rule 1-060(B)(5) because the 7 husband failed to show that enforcemen t of the agreement was inequitable). 8 As to Rule 1-060(B)(6), we noted thatrelief is only warranted if the movant 9 establishes exceptional circumstances “beyond the grounds enumerated in the other 10 subsections.” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Ferri , 120 N.M. 320, 326, 901 P.2d 738, 744 11 (1995); see Meiboom v. Watson , 2000-NMSC-004, ¶¶ 19, 33, 128 N.M. 536, 994 P.2d 12 1154 (noting that relief pursuant to Rule 1-060(B)(6) requires the moving party to 13 demonstrate compelling or exceptional circumstances). We proposed to hold that 14 Defendants failed to make the requisiteshowing of exceptional circumstances. 15 In their memorandum in opposition, Defendant s fail to rebut or even to address 16 the analysis contained in our notice of proposed summary disposition. [MIO 3-5] 17 Instead, they reiterate the arguments made to the district court as to why the Summary 18 Judgment Order was no longer, and had never been equitable. [MIO 3-4; RP 783- 195 790] We continue to disagree for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed 1 summary disposition. 2 In sum, Defendants’ reiteration of the arguments made in their Motion fails to 3 convince us that the analysis contained in our proposed disposition is in error. 4 Therefore, for the reasons set forth in our previous notice, we remain of the opinion 5 that the district court did not err indenying Defendants’ Motion for relief from 6 judgment. Cf. Hennessy v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 7 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held th at, in summary calendar cases, the burden is 8 on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or 9 law.”). 10 Conclusion 11 For the reasons set forth above as well as those set forth in our notice of 12 proposed summary disposition, we affirm the district court’s order denying 13 Defendants’ Motion for relief from judgmen t pursuant to Rule 1-060(B)(5) and (6). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

___________ ___________ __________ 16 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 176 WE CONCUR: 1

_________________________________ 2 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 3

_________________________________ 4 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 5