AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In March 2007, the Homeowner executed a promissory note for $273,000 in favor of Los Alamos National Bank (LANB), secured by a mortgage. After entering into a modification agreement to avoid default, the Homeowner defaulted in March 2011 by failing to make payments. LANB filed a foreclosure complaint in August 2011, attaching an unindorsed copy of the note. The Homeowner later filed for bankruptcy, listing LANB as a secured creditor. In March 2012, LANB deposited the original note, now indorsed in blank, with the court (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• District Court, February 5, 2012: Default judgment in favor of LANB based on Homeowner's failure to answer.
• District Court, June 7, 2012: Default judgment set aside after Homeowner's motion, citing excusable neglect and challenging LANB's standing.
• District Court, January 25, 2016: LANB's second motion for in rem summary judgment denied due to unresolved issues regarding Fannie Mae's interest in the note.
• District Court: LANB's third motion for in rem summary judgment granted, establishing LANB's standing as the note holder and loan servicer, and applying judicial estoppel against Homeowner.

Parties' Submissions

• Homeowner: Argued LANB lacked standing to enforce the note at the time of filing the complaint, questioned LANB's role as servicer to enforce the note, and challenged the admissibility and sufficiency of LANB's evidence regarding possession of the note.
• LANB: Asserted standing to enforce the note as its holder and servicer, provided affidavits and business records to prove possession of the indorsed note at the time of filing the complaint, and argued Homeowner was judicially estopped from challenging LANB's standing due to his bankruptcy filings.

Legal Issues

• Whether LANB had standing to enforce the note at the time it filed the foreclosure complaint.
• Whether LANB, as the loan servicer, could enforce the note owned by another entity not party to the foreclosure action.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of LANB, establishing LANB's standing as both the holder of the note and the loan servicer authorized to enforce it.

Reasons

• M. Monica Zamora, Chief Judge, with Julie J. Vargas and Megan P. Duffy, Judges concurring, held that LANB had standing to enforce the note as its holder at the time of filing the complaint, supported by affidavits and business records. The court found Homeowner's challenges to the admissibility of LANB's evidence unpreserved for appeal. It also concluded that a loan servicer like LANB could enforce a note even without owning it, provided it has authority, either statutorily or contractually. The court did not address the alternative basis for affirmance related to judicial estoppel, as the primary grounds for the decision were sufficient to affirm the summary judgment (paras 11-30).