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

• The case involves a dispute following the foreclosure and sale of a residence. A foreclosure judgment was previously issued, and a special master was appointed for the sale of the property. The property was sold to Ajax 2018-B REO Corp. (Ajax), which had been assigned the judgment and bid from the Plaintiff, MTGLQ Investors, LP. The Defendant, Michael E. Aranda, raised objections to the sale, specifically concerning the assignment to Ajax and its potential impact on his right of redemption. (paras 2-3)

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (MTGLQ Investors, LP): Argued in favor of confirming the sale of the property to Ajax 2018-B REO Corp., following the foreclosure judgment and the assignment of the judgment and bid to Ajax.
• Defendant-Appellant (Michael E. Aranda): Contended that there were irregularities leading up to the order confirming the sale, specifically alleging that the assignment to Ajax could affect his right of redemption and suggesting a possible conspiracy related to the assignment. Also challenged the amount paid for the home at the sale. (paras 2-4)

Legal Issues

• Whether there were irregularities in the process leading up to the order confirming the sale of the residence.
• Whether the assignment of the judgment and bid to Ajax affected the Defendant's right of redemption.
• Whether the sale price of the home needed to equal the appraised value of the home. (paras 2-4)

Disposition

• The appeal from the district court order confirming the sale was affirmed. (para 5)

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges Jennifer L. Attrep, Jacqueline R. Medina, and Jane B. Yohalem, found no irregularities in the process leading up to the order confirming the sale. The court disagreed with the Defendant's claim that the assignment to Ajax could affect his right of redemption, labeling it as speculative and not ripe for review since no redemption proceedings were under review. The court took judicial notice of the updated district court record, which showed the petition for redemption was denied for reasons unrelated to the assignment of Plaintiff’s interests. The court also found no evidence of a conspiracy or fraud in the assignment process. Regarding the challenge to the sale price of the home, the court held that there is no requirement for the sale price to equal the appraised value, and the amount paid did not "shock the court’s conscience," even with a greater alleged disparity, in the absence of any attendant irregularities. (paras 2-5)