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 homeowners, Jerome and Amy Roybal, faced foreclosure by Bank of America (BOA) after failing to respond to the summons and complaint for foreclosure. BOA attempted personal service three times and, following these attempts, was granted permission by the district court to serve by posting and mailing. The Roybals did not appear in court or answer the summons, leading to a default judgment in favor of BOA, who then purchased the property at a special master’s sale. The Roybals later filed a motion to reinstate the case, claiming they were never served and challenging BOA's standing due to the lack of a special endorsement on the promissory note (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Homeowners: Argued they were never served with the foreclosure complaint or any documents related to the case. They also contended that BOA lacked standing to foreclose because the promissory note did not have a special endorsement to BOA at the time the complaint was filed (para 3).
• Bank of America: Asserted that service was properly executed by posting and mailing after three unsuccessful attempts at personal service. BOA also implied that its standing and the validity of the foreclosure process were not effectively challenged by the homeowners until after the default judgment was entered (paras 2, 4-8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the homeowners were properly served with the summons and complaint for foreclosure under Rule 1-004(F) NMRA (para 4).
• Whether the homeowners waived their right to challenge BOA’s standing by not raising the issue prior to the entry of the default judgment (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the homeowners' motion to vacate the default judgment and foreclosure sale, holding that the homeowners waived their right to challenge BOA's standing by not raising the issue before the entry of the default judgment (para 12).

Reasons

• LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, with JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring: The court found that the homeowners were properly served under Rule 1-004(F) NMRA, as evidenced by the process server's affidavits and testimony regarding attempts at personal service and subsequent service by posting and mailing. The court also held that, according to the recent New Mexico Supreme Court case, standing arguments must be raised before the completion of a trial on the merits or while litigation is still active. Since the homeowners did not challenge BOA's standing until after the default judgment, they waived their right to do so. The court deferred to the district court's findings that the homeowners were properly served and had attempted to deliberately avoid service, supporting the conclusion that service was proper and the homeowners had an opportunity to challenge standing before the default judgment (paras 4-11).