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 a foreclosure judgment. The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of CWMBS, Inc., CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2001-15 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Series 2007-15, initiated foreclosure proceedings. Matt McDonald, as Trustee for the 3 Quiet Lane Trust, sought to intervene in the foreclosure litigation after the final judgment was entered, claiming an interest in the property due to a "No Deficiency Agreement" between himself, as trustee, and the former homeowner.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Matt McDonald, as Trustee for the 3 Quiet Lane Trust): Argued that the motion to intervene was improperly denied on timeliness grounds, citing a precedent where intervention was allowed after the trial but before the final judgment. Additionally, contended that the discovery of a "No Deficiency Agreement" constituted newly discovered evidence justifying intervention.
• Appellee (The Bank of New York Mellon): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the motion to intervene based on timeliness.
• Whether the "No Deficiency Agreement" constitutes newly discovered evidence warranting reconsideration of the motion to intervene.

Disposition

• The appeal from the district court's denial of the motion to reconsider denial of the motion to intervene was affirmed.

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, along with concurring Judges Henry M. Bohnhoff and Stephen G. French, determined that the appellant's motion to intervene was untimely as it was filed eight months after the entry of the final judgment of foreclosure, contrasting with the precedent cited by the appellant where intervention was allowed before the final judgment. The court found that the appellant did not demonstrate any relationship between the parties that would have indicated his interests were being protected during the foreclosure litigation, thus necessitating earlier intervention. Furthermore, the court concluded that the "No Deficiency Agreement," executed shortly after the foreclosure judgment and known to the appellant, did not constitute newly discovered evidence that could not have been found through due diligence. The appellant's memorandum in opposition failed to adequately explain how this agreement would have impacted the foreclosure proceedings to justify intervention. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to intervene and the motion to reconsider based on these grounds (paras 1-4).