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 dispute over a mortgage foreclosure. The Defendants, Marcus D. Chavez and Lorraine D. Chavez, signed a mortgage and related agreements as husband and wife. They later filed a motion to vacate the judgment and dismiss for lack of standing, which was denied by the district court. Marcus D. Chavez, acting pro se, appealed the decision, although Lorraine D. Chavez did not file a notice of appeal within the allowable time frame (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the Plaintiff-Appellee failed to show standing to foreclose on the mortgage, contending that physical possession of the note does not demonstrate a perfected security interest and that the assignment of the mortgage by Mortgage Electronic System (MERS) was ineffective (paras 3-4).
• Appellee: Supported the proposed disposition to affirm the district court's decision, asserting that they had standing to bring the foreclosure action as they were in possession of bearer paper, indorsed in blank, and were the holder of the note entitled to enforce it (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Appellee had standing to bring the foreclosure action against the Defendants.
• Whether the assignment of the mortgage to Appellee by MERS was effective in establishing the right to enforce the note.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied as non-viable, and the district court's decision to deny the motion to vacate the judgment and dismiss for lack of standing was affirmed (para 6).

Reasons

• TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The court noted that Marcus D. Chavez could not represent Lorraine D. Chavez on appeal as he is not a licensed attorney. However, the outcome of the appeal applies equally to her since both parties signed the mortgage and related agreements (para 1).
  The court was not persuaded by the Appellant's arguments, including the new issue raised in the memorandum in opposition, and therefore denied the motion to amend the docketing statement as non-viable (para 2).
  The court found that the Appellee had standing to bring the foreclosure action as they were in possession of the note, indorsed in blank, at the time the foreclosure action was filed. This possession established Appellee as the holder of the note, entitled to enforce it (para 3).
  The court disagreed with the Appellant's argument that the MERS assignment of the mortgage was ineffective to establish Appellee's right to enforce the note. It was determined that the assignment of the mortgage occurred prior to the filing of the foreclosure complaint and that Appellee was the holder of the note, which was indorsed in blank, thus having standing to foreclose on the mortgage (para 5).
  The court also addressed and denied a new issue raised by the Appellant regarding Appellee’s status as a trustee affecting its capacity as holder of the note, citing the appellant's failure to meet the requirements for amending the docketing statement (para 6).