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

• Freedom Mortgage Corporation initiated a foreclosure action on a property owned by Jessica Saxon, who had passed away. Ken Stevens, the personal representative of Saxon's estate, did not respond to the complaint, leading to a default judgment and the sale of the property to MAK Investments LLC for $283,000. Subsequently, Stevens assigned his right to redeem the property to Robert Ashton, who then filed a petition for redemption, tendering the necessary amount plus interest as per New Mexico’s redemption statute. MAK Investments contested Ashton's redemption as void.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• MAK Investments LLC: Argued that Ashton’s redemption of the property was void, the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Ashton, erred in dismissing MAK’s petition for declaratory relief, and improperly reduced the redemption amount required from Ashton.
• Robert J. Ashton: Contended that his redemption was valid, supported by the assignment of the right to redeem from Stevens, and complied with the statutory requirements for redemption.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment that Ashton’s redemption was valid.
• Whether the district court erred in dismissing MAK’s petition for declaratory relief.
• Whether the district court erred in reducing the redemption amount required from Ashton.

Disposition

• The district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Ashton and dismissing MAK’s petition for declaratory relief were affirmed.
• The district court’s judgment reducing the redemption amount was reversed.

Reasons

• Per Bogardus, J. (Henderson, J., and Yohalem, J., concurring): The court found that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Ashton, as MAK failed to establish a legal or factual basis that the assignment of Stevens’ redemption right to Ashton was invalid (paras 6-17). The court also held that the district court did not err in dismissing MAK’s petition for declaratory relief, applying the doctrine of priority jurisdiction since the elements for this doctrine were satisfied (paras 18-25). However, the court reversed the district court’s decision to reduce the redemption amount, concluding that the redemption statute does not authorize such a reduction based on rent for Ashton’s loss of use of the property during the litigation period (paras 26-35).