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 case involves a foreclosure complaint by Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC (Plaintiff) against Janice E. Viesel and the Estate of Benjamin A. Garcia, with Janice E. Viesel acting as the personal representative. The Defendant, Janice E. Viesel, defaulted on her mortgage payments, leading to the foreclosure action. Despite entering into a forbearance plan that ended in January 2014, the Defendant failed to resume timely mortgage payments or settle the past due amounts, prompting the Plaintiff to pursue foreclosure. The Defendant hoped for additional forbearance and attempted to settle the dispute through various offers, alleging that the Plaintiff acted in bad faith by pursuing foreclosure instead of modification (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellee: Argued that the Defendant defaulted on the debt and that foreclosure was warranted absent some defense raised by the Defendant (para 3).
• Defendants/Counterclaimants/Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants: Challenged the grant of summary judgment on the grounds of hoping for additional forbearance on payments, attempting to settle the dispute with various offers, and alleging that the Plaintiff acted in bad faith by pursuing foreclosure instead of modification (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on its foreclosure complaint, considering the Defendant's hopes for additional forbearance, attempts to settle, and allegations of bad faith by the Plaintiff (paras 1, 4).

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on its foreclosure complaint (para 5).

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, Chief Judge (Jacqueline R. Medina, Judge and Jane B. Yohalem, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that summary judgment was appropriate as there were no genuine issues of material fact and the Plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Defendant did not allege that the Plaintiff lacked standing to foreclose and failed to establish any factual dispute relating to her failure to make mortgage payments after January 2014 or to satisfy amounts past due. The Court concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment because it was not the court's role to impose a new contract on the parties based on unilateral expectations of the Defendant for a new contract to materialize from her communications with the Plaintiff (paras 2-4).