Rabo Agrifinance, LLC v. Terra XXI, Ltd.
| Decision Date | 09 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. A-1-CA-37117,A-1-CA-37117 |
| Parties | RABO AGRIFINANCE, LLC, Successor in Interest to Farm Credit Bank of Texas, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TERRA XXI, LTD, a Texas limited partnership, composed of VEIGEL CATTLE CO., as General Partner; ROBERT WAYNE VEIGEL a/k/a BOB W. VEIGEL; ELLA MARIE WILLIAMS VEIGEL; VEIGEL CATTLE CO., a Texas corporation; VEIGEL FARM PARTNERS, a Texas general partnership, d/b/a VEIGEL PARTNERS, BOB VEIGEL, INC., a Texas corporation; STEVE VEIGEL, INC., a Texas corporation; VEIGEL KIRK, INC., a Texas corporation; VICKI VEIGEL, INC., a Texas corporation; VEIGEL FARMS, INC., a Texas corporation; TERRA PARTNERS, a Texas general partnership; BURNETT & VEIGEL, INC., a Texas corporation as General Partner of TERRA PARTNERSHIP, and ALL UNKNOWN CLAIMANTS OF INTEREST IN THE PREMISES ADVERSE TO THE PLAINTIFF, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF QUAY COUNTY
Rowley Law Firm, L.L.C.
Richard F. Rowley, II
Clovis, NM
for Appellee
William F. Davis & Associates, P.C.
William F. Davis
Nephi D. Hardman
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellants
{1} In this mortgage foreclosure dispute, Robert Wayne Veigel and Terra XXI, Ltd., et al.1 (members of the Veigel family or entities run by members of the Veigel family) (collectively, Defendants) appeal from the district court's order entered on January 8, 2018 (January 2018 Order), in favor of Rabo Agrifinance, LLC (Plaintiff). We affirm.
{2} This is the fourth appeal that has been before this Court arising from this dispute. See Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Terra XXI, Ltd., No. 34,757, mem. op. ¶¶ 1, 2 (N.M. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2015) (non-precedential); Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Terra XXI, Ltd., 2014-NMCA-106, ¶ 2, 336 P.3d 972; Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Terra XXI, Ltd., 2012-NMCA-038, ¶ 2, 274 P.3d 127. Our factual overview in this memorandum opinion is drawn from three prior opinions and the current record proper.
{3} In prior appeals, we affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. We held that Plaintiff had a 100% lien interest in the subject property, dismissed Defendants' counterclaims, denied relief from judgment under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA, and noted disapproval of Defendants' multiple Rule 1-060(B) motions. See Rabo Agrifinance, Inc., No. 34,757, mem. op. ¶¶ 1, 2; Rabo Agrifinance, Inc., 2014-NMCA-106, ¶¶ 2, 8; Rabo Agrifinance, Inc., 2012-NMCA-038, ¶¶ 2, 21. Following Defendants' most recent unsuccessful appeal, in which we denied Defendant's second Rule 1-060(B) motion pursuant to the primary fund doctrine, Plaintiff moved for the release of a $150,000 supersedeas bond previously granted to stay the confirmation of the foreclosure sale during the appeal, for confirmation of the foreclosure sale itself, entry of deficiency judgment in the amount of $1,478,034.37, and entry of an order declaring the special warranty deeds (the May 2015 Deeds)—conveyed to Steve Veigeland recorded on the same day as the May 19, 2015 foreclosure sale—null and void. See Rabo Agrifinance, Inc., No. 34,757, mem. op. ¶¶ 1, 2. Less than a month later, on May 4, 2016, the district court issued an order confirming the foreclosure sale and providing a one-month right of redemption.
{4} On May 31, 2016, the same day as the hearing on Plaintiff's motion to resolve remaining issues, Steve Veigel filed a notice of the filing of assignments, assigning rights to any and all causes of actions from all Defendants except Robert Veigel to Steve Veigel. At the hearing, the district court orally granted Plaintiff's motion, and issued an order to that effect on June 29, 2016 (June 2016 Order), awarding Plaintiff the $150,000 supersedeas bond, granting the deficiency judgment in the amount of $1,478,034.37, and declaring the May 2015 Deeds null and void. Before entry of the June 2016 Order, Steve Veigel, who is not a party to the action, and Defendant Robert Veigel, filed a pro se motion to reconsider, reopen, and vacate all orders and judgments for Plaintiff, raising previously adjudicated arguments regarding the extinguishment of Plaintiff's liens in the bankruptcy discharge. Twelve days after the entry of the June 2016 Order, Steve Veigel, again joined by Defendant Robert Veigel, filed a pro se supplemental motion to reconsider, reopen, and vacate all orders and judgments for Plaintiff.
{5} On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff moved for a writ of assistance to effect entry of the June 2016 judgment, which the district court granted. Approximately one year later, on August 25, 2017, the district court issued a disposition order for lack of prosecution. One month later, Defendants filed a motion for reinstatement. The district court heard arguments on the motion and ultimately entered an order on January 8, 2018 (January 2018 Order), denying Defendants' motion for reinstatement, motion to reconsider, reopen and vacate all orders and judgments for Plaintiff, and supplemental motion to reconsider, reopen, and vacate all orders and judgments for Plaintiff. Defendants appeal.
{6} Defendants argue the denial of the motion for reinstatement was improper because the district court erred by (1) dismissing the case for lack of prosecution; (2) refusing to reinstate the case for good cause; (3) applying res judicata to the Texas judgments; (4) acting without jurisdiction during pending appeals as well as in contravention of the bankruptcy court's discharge; (5) confirming Plaintiff's status as a judgment creditor in violation of federal borrowers' rights; (6) refusing to reverse the nullification of the two deeds allegedly conveyed to Steve Veigel on May 19, 2015 (the May 2015 Deeds); and (7) refusing to reverse the award of supersedeas bonds to Plaintiff. Unpersuaded, we affirm.
{7} Based on our review of the record, we note that three of Defendants' arguments—those pertaining to the applicability of res judicata, federal borrowers rights, and extinguishment of liens in Chapter 11 bankruptcy discharge—should have been raised or were raised and addressed in their earlier appeals, and now Defendants are bound by the law of the case. See Rabo Agrifinance, Inc., No. 34,757, mem. op. ¶ 4 (); Rabo Agrifinance, Inc., 2014-NMCA-106, ¶¶ 2, 8, 17 (affirming summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff that Plaintiff holds a 100% lien interest in the subject property); Rabo Agrifinance, Inc., 2012-NMCA-038, ¶¶ 4, 19-21 (affirming the summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff including the dismissal of Defendants' counterclaims as barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel). "We have long held that a decision by an appeals court on an issue of law made in one stage of a lawsuit becomes binding on subsequent trial courts as well as subsequent appeals courts during the course of that litigation." State ex rel. King v. UU Bar Ranch Ltd. P'ship, 2009-NMSC-010, ¶ 21, 145 N.M. 769, 205 P.3d 816. "It has also been said that the rule applies not only to questions specifically decided [or raised], but also to those necessarily involved . . . [and] those questions which could have been . . . raised." Farmers' State Bank of Texhoma, Okl. v. Clayton Nat'l Bank, 1925-NMSC-026, ¶ 20, 31 N.M. 344, 245 P. 543 (citation omitted); see also Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 1998-NMSC-031, ¶ 40, 125 N.M. 721, 965 P.2d 305 . While we will not apply the law-of-the-case doctrine to uphold a clearly erroneous decision, it is within our discretion to apply the law of the case where the previous decisions were not clearly erroneous, as here. Trujillo, 1998-NMSC-031, ¶ 41; Farmers' State Bank of Texhoma, 1925-NMSC-026, ¶ 24. Accordingly, we decline to address arguments Defendant raised or could have raised in prior appeals and limit our review to Defendants' remaining contentions.
{8} Defendants contend that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of prosecution before the applicable time had expired and by denying reinstatement for good cause. Because we conclude that the underlying motions were improper, we cannot agree with Defendants' contentions that the denial of reinstatement was in error.
{9} As a preliminary matter, we address whether Defendants' motions were properly before the district court. The district court's January 2018 Order states, "Steve Veigel is not a party in the case and had no standing to file motions in this matter, especially as a pro se litigant on behalf of corporations and other legal entities." We agree. It is axiomatic that a non-attorney, non-party cannot file pro se motions on behalf of parties to an action. See Martinez v. Roscoe, 2001-NMCA-083, ¶ 5, 131 N.M. 137, 33 P.3d 887 (). Moreover, there having been no properly filed motion by Steve Veigel, it was improper for Robert Veigel to join Steve Veigel's motions. Notably, Defendants cite no authority for the proposition that Robert Veigel's joining of the improper motions thereby renders the motion proper, given that Defendants were fully aware that Steve Veigel had previously been denied intervention in 2013. See In re Adoption of Doe, 1984-NM...
To continue reading
Request your trial