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 homeowner, Pete D. Salazar, who was subject to a decree of foreclosure and order granting summary judgment in favor of Pennymac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLC. The core of the dispute revolves around the foreclosure of Salazar's property.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Sandoval County, John F. Davis, District Judge, January 27, 2016: The district court entered a decree of foreclosure and order granting summary judgment in favor of Pennymac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLC.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (Pennymac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLC): Argued that it established its standing as a holder in due course of the note by having possession of the original note, indorsed in blank, at the time of the filing of the complaint and also had a valid mortgage assignment.
• Defendant-Appellant (Pete D. Salazar): Challenged the MERS assignment and MERS’ ability to assign the rights to enforce the mortgage, asserting that without definitive instruction from a definitive principal as authority, MERS, or a MERS assignee, as agent has no authority to exercise the mortgage.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff established its standing as a holder in due course of the note by having possession of the original note, indorsed in blank, at the time of the filing of the complaint and also having a valid mortgage assignment.
• Whether the challenge to the standing based on the validity of a mortgage assignment by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) is valid.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court’s entry of a decree of foreclosure and order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Pennymac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLC.

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, and RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge concurring:
  The court found that the Plaintiff established its standing as a holder in due course of the note based on possession of the original note, indorsed in blank, at the time of the filing of the complaint and also had a valid mortgage assignment (para 2).
  The court rejected any challenge to standing based on the validity of a mortgage assignment by MERS, citing precedent that supports the ability of MERS to assign the rights to enforce the mortgage (para 2).
  The homeowner's memorandum in opposition was found to be unresponsive to the court’s proposed disposition, failing to address the case law set forth in the proposed disposition and not providing citations to either case law or the record to support his arguments (para 3).
  The court concluded that the proposed disposition was correct based on the homeowner's failure to clearly point out errors in fact or law and the lack of authority cited to support his arguments (para 3).