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 property foreclosure. The Defendant, Christee Thomson Streett, challenged the district court’s order granting a writ of assistance to the Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, which acted as indenture trustee for the Encore Credit Receivables Trust 2005-3. The Defendant contended she was the rightful owner of the property and argued that the Plaintiff did not have standing to enforce the note on the property or had procured the judgment by fraud.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that she is the owner of the property and that the Plaintiff did not establish standing to enforce the note on the property or procured the judgment by fraud.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in issuing the writ of assistance to the Plaintiff.
• Whether the Plaintiff had standing to enforce the note on the property.
• Whether the Plaintiff procured the foreclosure judgment by fraud.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting the writ of assistance to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, and JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge concurring:
  The Court of Appeals found that the Defendant's appeal was timely only from the district court’s writ of assistance and not from the underlying foreclosure judgment issued in May 2015. The Defendant's arguments were deemed irrelevant to the appeal of the writ of assistance as they pertained to the foreclosure judgment, from which she did not timely appeal. The Court referenced Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Johnston to clarify that standing in a foreclosure action is prudential, not jurisdictional, and the lack of standing does not render a foreclosure judgment voidable. The Defendant did not provide any authority to support her position that the attacks on the underlying foreclosure judgment could provide relief from the writ of assistance. Consequently, the Court remained unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments against the foreclosure judgment and affirmed the issuance of the writ of assistance (paras 1-3).