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 mortgage foreclosure suit where the Plaintiff, LSF9 Master Participation Trust, seeks to enforce a promissory note against Nancy Wils, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., and Matt McDonald, as Trustee for the 5301 Vicksburg Dr. NW Trust. The promissory note in question bears one blank indorsement and two special indorsements to entities other than the Plaintiff. The standing of the Plaintiff to enforce the note as the holder of bearer paper depends on the sequence of these indorsements.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis that the summary judgment standard required the Intervenor to present evidence raising a reasonable doubt about the order of the indorsements. Additionally, claimed a holder is entitled to a presumption that indorsements are authentic and authorized (paras 2-3).
• Intervenor-Appellant: Raised a factual dispute regarding the Plaintiff’s entitlement to enforce the note, relying on the note itself, which bears three separate, undated indorsements. This was used to challenge the sequence of the indorsements and, by extension, the Plaintiff's standing to enforce the note (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the Plaintiff by resolving a disputed question of fact contrary to the summary judgment standard.
• Whether the presence of three undated indorsements on the promissory note raises a factual question about the order in which they were made, affecting the Plaintiff's standing to enforce the note as bearer paper.

Disposition

• The judgment of the district court was reversed, and the case was remanded to that court for further proceedings (para 5).

Reasons

• Per Linda M. Vanzi, J., with Kristina Bogardus, J., and Jacqueline R. Medina, J., concurring: The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, LSF9 Master Participation Trust, based on the improper resolution of a disputed question of fact regarding the sequence of indorsements on a promissory note. The appellate court found that the summary judgment was improperly granted because the indorsements on the note raised a factual question that should be determined by a trier of fact. The Plaintiff's argument that a presumption of authenticity and authority was sufficient for summary judgment was rejected because the undated indorsements themselves constituted evidence that could rebut this presumption. The case was remanded for further proceedings to resolve the factual dispute regarding the order of the indorsements and, consequently, the Plaintiff's standing to enforce the note (paras 1-5).