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

• Matrix Financial Services Corporation (Matrix) filed a foreclosure complaint against Adele Larribas among other defendants. Larribas initially filed an answer asserting Matrix lacked standing to foreclose but did not challenge Matrix's evidence of standing. After a summary and default judgment was entered in favor of Matrix, and a special master’s sale was held, Larribas filed a motion to vacate the sale and declare the judgment void, challenging Matrix’s standing (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The court granted Larribas's motion to vacate foreclosure judgment due to lack of standing and dismissed Matrix’s foreclosure complaint with prejudice.

Parties' Submissions

• Matrix: Argued that the district court erred in considering Larribas's motion to vacate, in granting the motion when Larribas failed to articulate her standing objections or respond or appear at the hearing, in finding that standing had to be proven with a dated indorsement as of the filing of the complaint, in concluding that Matrix did not prove it had standing as of the filing of the complaint based on the record presented, and in dismissing Matrix’s foreclosure complaint with prejudice (para 1).
• Larribas: Challenged Matrix’s standing to foreclose, asserting that Matrix lacks standing without providing specifics. Later filed a motion to vacate the sale and declare the judgment void based on Matrix’s lack of standing (paras 3-4).

Legal Issues

• Whether Larribas waived her right to challenge Matrix’s standing by failing to do so prior to the entry of the final judgment.
• Whether the district court erred in granting Larribas's motion to vacate the foreclosure judgment and dismissing the foreclosure complaint with prejudice due to a lack of standing on Matrix's part.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order granting Larribas’s motion to vacate and remanded with instructions to reinstate the judgment and foreclosure complaint (para 11).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, with RODERICK T. KENNEDY and STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judges concurring, found that Larribas waived her right to challenge Matrix’s standing by not doing so prior to the entry of the final judgment. The court referenced a recent Supreme Court clarification that a party waives standing arguments if not raised prior to the completion of a trial on the merits or while litigation is still active. Since Larribas only challenged Matrix’s standing after the final judgment was entered, the court concluded she waived her right to challenge. Furthermore, the court held that a final judgment on an action, including an action to enforce a promissory note, is not voidable under Rule 1-060(B) due to a lack of prudential standing. The court determined that the district court erred in considering the merits of Larribas’s post-final judgment challenge to Matrix’s prudential standing and in granting Larribas’s motion to vacate on such grounds (paras 2, 5-10).