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

• Mary M. Jimenez signed a promissory note in 2001, obligating her to pay $90,000 with interest to National City Mortgage Co. (NCMC), and mortgaged a property as collateral. In 2006, Jimenez quitclaimed her interest in the property to Steven J. and Micha G. Valdez, who then began making payments on the note. Following several corporate changes, PNC Bank, National Association, became the successor in interest. Jimenez passed away in 2012, payments ceased, and the loan defaulted. PNC filed a complaint seeking foreclosure on the property and judgment against Jimenez in 2012 (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (PNC Bank): Argued it had the right to enforce the lost note through its unbroken chain of predecessors by merger and satisfied the elements required to enforce a lost note under relevant statutes. PNC contended it had made reasonable efforts to locate the original note but was unable to do so (para 7).
• Defendants-Appellants (The Valdezes): Argued PNC lacked standing because it was required to prove it was in possession of the note when it was lost. They contended PNC could not enforce the note as it was not a party to the original mortgage and note, and another entity lost the note before PNC came into possession (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether PNC Bank has standing to enforce a lost note and foreclose on the property despite the note being lost and the series of corporate mergers.
• Whether the district court erred in granting an in personam judgment against the Valdezes, who were not original parties to the note (paras 7-9, 13-14).

Disposition

• The district court’s judgment foreclosing the Valdezes’ interest in the property was affirmed.
• The case was remanded for entry of a corrected judgment that vacates the in personam judgment against the Valdezes (para 15).

Reasons

• Per Henry M. Bohnhoff, J. (Michael E. Vigil, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring):
  The court found that PNC presented sufficient evidence to establish standing to enforce the note despite claims the note had been assigned. The evidence showed no assignments occurred during the name change and merger transactions, and PNC’s standard practice would have recorded any transfer or seizure of the note, which did not happen (para 13).
  The court declined to consider the Valdezes' arguments raised for the first time on appeal due to lack of preservation and development in the lower court. The court emphasized that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as members of the bar regarding conduct and compliance with court rules (paras 10-12).
  Regarding the in personam judgment against the Valdezes, the court noted PNC acknowledged a mistake in the judgment it submitted to the district court. PNC clarified it seeks only in rem foreclosure against the Valdezes and any in personam judgment should be against only Jimenez or her estate. The court decided to remand for entry of a corrected judgment vacating the in personam judgment against the Valdezes (para 14).