This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VANZI, Judge.

{1} Putative Intervener-Appellant Steven L. Gilmore (Appellant) filed the instant appeal following the entry of an order denying his motion to intervene. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Appellant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we affirm.

{2} As we previously observed, the ruling on the motion to intervene may have constituted either a discretionary exercise of the district court's inherent authority to regulate the proceedings, or a decision on the merits. Appellant's memorandum in opposition is wholly unresponsive to our proposed summary disposition with respect to these matters. Accordingly, we adhere to our initial assessment.

{3} In his memorandum in opposition Appellant reiterates argument advanced at the district court level pursuant to Rule 1-060(B) NMRA, by which he seeks to attack the validity of a judgment and sale previously rendered in the underlying foreclosure action. [MIO 1-13] However, as we previously observed, insofar as Appellant was not a party to that action and was denied intervention, he lacks standing to advance further argument on the merits. See, e.g., Gullo v. Brown, 1971-NMSC-034, ¶ 8, 82 N.M. 412, 483 P.2d 293 (holding that an appellant lacked standing to attack a previously entered decree, given that he was not a party to it and had no right which was affected by it at the time of its entry). Once again, Appellant's memorandum fails to address this concern. As a result, we remain unpersuaded that the argument is properly before us.

{4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm.

{5} IT IS SO ORDERED.

JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge and M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, concurs.