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 Webbs defaulted on a mortgage secured by two notes executed in favor of Charles Schwab Bank, N.A. (Schwab) in 2003 and 2004. PHH Mortgage Corporation (the Bank), claiming ownership of the note, filed a complaint for foreclosure against the Webbs and Schwab in 2011. The Webbs did not respond to the complaint, leading to a default judgment in favor of the Bank. The property was sold following the judgment. The Webbs later filed a motion under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA to vacate the judgment and sale, arguing the Bank had no standing to foreclose and citing excusable neglect and exceptional circumstances (paras 3-5).

Procedural History

• District Court, May 13, 2013: Default judgment granted in favor of the Bank against the Webbs and Schwab for failure to respond to the foreclosure complaint (para 3).
• District Court, January 31, 2014: Stipulated order entered revising the default judgment order against Schwab only, following Schwab's motion to set aside the default judgment (para 4).
• District Court, July 10, 2014: Order approving the sale of the property issued after the property was sold on April 8, 2014 (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants (The Webbs): Argued that the Bank had no standing to foreclose, citing Bank of New York v. Romero and claiming excusable neglect and exceptional circumstances as grounds to vacate the judgment and sale order (para 1).
• Appellee (PHH Mortgage Corporation): Contended that the Webbs' motion was untimely and that they failed to demonstrate excusable neglect under Rule 1-060(B)(1) or exceptional circumstances under Rule 1-060(B)(6) (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Bank had standing to foreclose on the property.
• Whether the Webbs' motion under Rule 1-060(B) was timely and demonstrated excusable neglect or exceptional circumstances warranting relief from the default judgment and sale order.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Webbs' Rule 1-060(B) motion, concluding that the Webbs waived their challenge to the Bank’s standing and failed to show grounds for relief under Rule 1-060(B) (para 2).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Roderick T. Kennedy, with Judges M. Monica Zamora and Stephen G. French concurring, based its decision on several key points:
  The New Mexico Supreme Court's ruling in Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Johnston clarified that standing in mortgage foreclosure actions is prudential, not jurisdictional, and can be waived. This precedent led the court to conclude that the Webbs waived their right to challenge the Bank's standing by not raising it before the default judgment (paras 7-12).
  The court found the Webbs' motion under Rule 1-060(B) to be untimely, as it was filed more than a year after the default judgment. The court also determined that the Webbs failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or exceptional circumstances that would justify setting aside the default judgment and sale order (paras 13-25).
  The court emphasized that the Webbs were properly served and aware of the foreclosure proceedings but chose not to respond, undermining their arguments for relief based on excusable neglect and exceptional circumstances (paras 22-25).