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 December 2006, Kirsten Hood purchased a home in Santa Fe, securing the purchase with a promissory note to GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., and a mortgage contract with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as nominee. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, later filed a foreclosure complaint against Hood, claiming to hold the note and mortgage. Default judgment was entered against Hood in October 2009. In November 2011, Hood transferred her interest in the property to Gregory Hutchins, who then mortgaged his interest to Phoenix Funding, LLC. Phoenix filed suit to foreclose Hutchins' interest and to quiet title against Aurora and others, challenging the validity of the original foreclosure judgment (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Granted summary judgment in favor of Aurora Loan Services, LLC, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., finding Phoenix Funding, LLC's suit as an improper collateral attack on the original judgment and barred by res judicata (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Phoenix Funding, LLC: Argued that the original foreclosure judgment was void due to Aurora's lack of standing and, therefore, the district court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, Phoenix contended that Aurora fraudulently assigned the mortgage to itself (paras 4, 19, 32).
• Aurora Loan Services, LLC and MERS: Contended that Phoenix lacked standing to challenge the original foreclosure judgment as it was not a party to the original action and that Phoenix's claims were precluded under the doctrine of res judicata. Aurora also argued that it had standing to foreclose and that the district court's grant of summary judgment was proper (paras 6, 20).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Aurora and MERS by determining that Phoenix's claims were barred by res judicata.
• Whether a collateral attack on the original judgment by Phoenix was proper.
• Whether Aurora had standing to foreclose, implicating the district court's subject matter jurisdiction in the original foreclosure action (paras 6, 28, 14).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Aurora and MERS and remanded for further proceedings (para 45).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge M. Monica Zamora, concluded that Phoenix, as a successor in interest, had standing to challenge the validity of the prior default foreclosure judgment. The court found that Aurora lacked standing to foreclose, which deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction in the original foreclosure action, rendering the judgment void. Consequently, res judicata did not bar Phoenix's claims. The court also noted the implications of its decision in light of the New Mexico Supreme Court's ruling in Romero regarding standing and jurisdiction in foreclosure actions but did not address Phoenix's fraud claims, leaving the resolution of potential tensions between precedent and the present case to the Supreme Court (paras 13, 28, 31, 44).