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

• In 2016, Nationstar Mortgage LLC filed a foreclosure complaint, attaching a lost note affidavit dated September 9, 2016, to establish standing. During discovery, a different affidavit dated September 30, 2015, was produced by Nationstar. The Defendants argued that the affidavits did not satisfy the requirements to establish standing and that the later affidavit constituted an attempted fraud on the court (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Rio Arriba County: The court found the affidavit supporting standing to be "a sham and false," granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants based on a lack of standing, and dismissed the foreclosure action with prejudice (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (Nationstar Mortgage LLC): Argued that the district court improperly resolved a disputed question of fact regarding the affidavit and contended that the foreclosure action should have been dismissed for lack of standing without prejudice (para 1).
• Defendants-Appellees (Lynda R. Brashar and an unknown tenant): Argued that the affidavits did not satisfy the requirements to establish standing and that the 2016 affidavit was not based on personal knowledge, constituting an attempted fraud on the court. They sought dismissal with prejudice (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in striking the affidavit as "a sham and false."
• Whether the district court appropriately dismissed the complaint with prejudice as a sanction against Nationstar (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to strike the affidavit and dismiss the foreclosure action with prejudice (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, consisting of Judges Katherine A. Wray, Jane B. Yohalem, and Michael D. Bustamante, unanimously concurred in the opinion authored by Judge Wray. The court held that Nationstar failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in striking the affidavit. It was determined that the district court appropriately dismissed the complaint with prejudice as a sanction against Nationstar for attempting to mislead the court and prejudice the Defendants. The court's decision was based on the findings that Nationstar knew of the discrepancies between the two affidavits, the timing of their creation in relation to changes in the law, and the lack of credible evidence to support the 2016 affidavit. The court concluded that these actions constituted a willful violation of Rule 1-011(A), justifying the dismissal with prejudice as a sanction (paras 4-11).