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 2016, Christopher Tapia secured a mortgage on a property in Santa Fe, which was co-signed by his then-spouse, Erica Tapia, though she did not sign the promissory note. Following their divorce in May 2018, a California court ruled the property as Christopher's separate property. Nationstar Mortgage LLC later filed a foreclosure complaint against the Tapias and a junior lienholder, leading to the property's auction in August 2019 to Breckenridge Properties 2016, LLC. Subsequent assignments of the right of redemption were made by the Tapias to TAL Realty, Inc. (by Christopher) and to both Breckenridge and Ashok Kaushal (by Erica). Competing petitions for redemption were filed by TAL Realty and Kaushal, leading to the district court's decision favoring TAL Realty's redemption claim (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant (Kaushal): Argued that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether his assignor had an ownership interest in the property, contended that a mortgage signer is a "former defendant owner" eligible for redemption, and claimed protection under the Recording Act for his purchase of the right of redemption (paras 11, 16, 21).
• Petitioner-Appellee (TAL Realty, Inc.): Contended that the marital settlement agreement divested Erica of any right of redemption, rendering any assignment to Kaushal invalid, and asserted that only Christopher's redemption right was valid (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the assignor's ownership interest in the property.
• Whether a person who signs a mortgage is considered a "former defendant owner" eligible for redemption under NMSA 1978, Section 39-5-18(A).
• Whether the Recording Act protects the purchase of the right of redemption of the property (paras 11, 16, 21).

Disposition

• The district court's determination that TAL Realty validly redeemed the property and the dismissal of Kaushal’s petition for redemption were affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• BUSTAMANTE, Judge, retired, sitting by designation, with HANISEE, Judge, and BACA, Judge, concurring: The court held that the divorce decree and marital settlement agreement conclusively divested Erica of any interest in the property, leaving her without a redemption right to assign to Kaushal. It was determined that the term "former defendant owner" requires an ownership interest at the time of assignment to exercise a right of redemption, which Erica did not have. The court also found that the Recording Act did not protect Kaushal's purchase of the right of redemption because he was on constructive notice of a cloud on the title due to the recorded quitclaim deed from Erica to Breckenridge before his purchase. The court's analysis included statutory interpretation and application of the Recording Act, emphasizing the importance of ownership interest and notice in redemption rights (paras 7-26).