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 foreclosure action initiated by Nationwide Advantage Mortgage Company against Maria M. Garduno. Nationwide alleged that Garduno executed a note for which Nationwide was the payee. Garduno did not initially respond to the complaint, leading to a default judgment against her. After a motion to set aside the default judgment was granted, Garduno failed to file an answer within the allotted time. Nationwide then moved to strike Garduno's late answer and sought a default judgment, which the district court granted (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• June 28, 2012: Nationwide filed a complaint for foreclosure against Garduno.
• November 14, 2012: Nationwide filed a motion for default judgment, which the district court granted on December 3, 2012.
• May 9, 2013: Garduno filed a motion to set aside default judgment, which was granted on March 3, 2014.
• May 12, 2015: The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice due to lack of prosecution.
• June 11, 2015: Nationwide filed a motion to reinstate the case, which was granted on July 22, 2015.
• November 19, 2015: Nationwide filed a motion to strike Garduno’s answer as untimely, which was granted on March 23, 2016.
• July 14, 2016: Nationwide filed a motion for default judgment, which was granted on January 20, 2017 (paras 2-3).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (Nationwide Advantage Mortgage Company): Argued that Garduno executed a note for which Nationwide was the payee and sought foreclosure after Garduno failed to respond to the complaint.
• Defendant-Appellant (Maria M. Garduno): Attempted to challenge Nationwide's standing to enforce the note but was deemed to have waived this argument by not timely raising it before the district court (paras 4-6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellant waived the issue of standing by not timely raising it before the district court.
• Whether the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to render judgment in this matter (paras 4, 9).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment of foreclosure (para 10).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Michael E. Vigil, with Judges Henry M. Bohnhoff and Emil J. Kiehne concurring, held that Garduno waived the issue of standing by not timely raising it before the district court. The court referenced Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Johnston to clarify that standing is prudential rather than jurisdictional, meaning it can be waived if not timely asserted. The court also rejected Garduno's argument that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, citing Phoenix Funding, LLC v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC to state that a lack of plaintiff’s standing does not divest a court of subject matter jurisdiction (paras 4-10).