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 over the foreclosure of a mortgage. The Plaintiff, LSF9 Master Participation Trust, sought to foreclose a mortgage against Defendants, Kenneth B. Zangara and Kathy S. Zangara, alleging default on a promissory note. The Plaintiff's predecessor, Bank of America, N.A. (BANA), initially filed a complaint for foreclosure, which was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Plaintiff then filed a complaint alleging it had been assigned the mortgage by BANA and that BANA had lost the promissory note. The district court dismissed this claim due to lack of standing, as there was no indication that New Mexico law permitted assignment of the right to enforce a lost note. Following this dismissal, the Defendants filed an action to quiet title, asserting the Plaintiff's claim was time-barred. The Plaintiff filed another foreclosure complaint, claiming timeliness under New Mexico’s Savings Statute (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court, February 20, 2018: Dismissed Plaintiff’s foreclosure claim for lack of standing (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants: Argued that the Plaintiff's claim for foreclosure was time-barred under NMSA 1978, Section 37-1-3(A), which provides a six-year limitations period for actions founded upon a contract in writing (para 4).
• Plaintiff: Asserted that its foreclosure claim was timely under New Mexico’s Savings Statute, § 37-1-14, despite the prior dismissal for lack of standing. Claimed it had been assigned all rights to enforce the lost note by BANA through an assignment of lost note affidavit executed after the dismissal of the prior foreclosure action (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in concluding that a plaintiff whose foreclosure suit is dismissed for lack of standing cannot claim the protection of the Savings Statute (para 5).
• Whether the Savings Statute is inapplicable because Plaintiff’s prior foreclosure action failed for negligence in the prosecution (para 8).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants, holding that the dismissal for lack of standing does not fall within the exception for negligence in the prosecution under the Savings Statute (para 13).

Reasons

• Per IVES, J., with MEDINA, J., and DUFFY, J., concurring:
  The Court found the district court's reliance on Mercer to conclude that the Savings Statute did not apply was misplaced. It clarified that the general rule in Mercer, regarding suits brought against deceased persons being nullities, does not extend to dismissals for lack of standing (para 7).
  The Court distinguished between dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which are nonwaivable, and dismissals for lack of standing, which are waivable. It held that a dismissal for lack of standing does not preclude reliance on the Savings Statute, allowing the action to be considered a continuation of the action dismissed for lack of standing (paras 12-13).
  The Court also addressed the issue of standing to enforce a lost promissory note, resolving it in Plaintiff’s favor based on a recent precedential opinion, indicating that the entitlement to enforce a lost promissory note can be assigned under New Mexico’s Uniform Commercial Code (para 1).