Hearing May 9, 2006 –


Your honor, you asked at the beginning of the last hearing why I did not
file my answer in time, because, you mentioned, the rest could possibly
be moot.

So I am here your honor to show you the correct and true facts.

The facts are according to the documents I have in front of me, that I
was not properly served.

I have five points that I want to make:
1. There are two different dates of service shown on record:
March 19, 2005 is the first, for service of the Complaint
March 29, 2005 is the second, for service of the Amended Complaint
Copy of Record from web – copies with dates high lighted

2. I filed Chapter 13 on March 21, 2005, with the result that I had the
protection of the Automatic Stay when the Amended Complaint was
served on me on March 29, 2005.
Copy of Bankruptcy documents to show Chapter 13 filed         
     March 21, 2005

3. Stay was lifted on July 1, 2005.
Copy of Bankruptcy Record/Docket page 5
   
Note: It shows that I knew and Leverick knew I
             knew about the foreclosure action –
   









4. Plaintiff requested and was issued summonses for all defendants but
me on July 25, 2005.
I wrote this in error, two defendants had responded to the void
Amended Complaint and they, Manhattan Condo Unit
Owners’ Association and Crocker, were not served again.
   Copy of Record from the web showing summonses issued
             July 25, 2005
   Copy of Record from the web showing returns filed
             August 1, 2005

5. Certificate as to the State of the Record fails to account for
bankruptcy/automatic stay
   Copy of Certificate to be obtained from clerks
–                                                                                                         
                                                           
                                            Exhibit 1
“All that is necessary to constitute an “appearance” to avoid
default judgment without notice, is an affirmative act by the party
showing knowledge of the suit and intention to appear, this
affirmative act can be shown by contacts between attorneys, by
letter from one attorney to the other or where plaintiff’s attorney
has acquiesced in defendant’s request for more time to answer.”
Gengler v. Phelps, 89 N.M. 793, 558 P.2d 62 (Ct. App. 1976).
My Appeal

Summary
Disposition