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

• Defendants-Appellants Karen Duran and Fred Montano (Defendants) owned a home secured by a mortgage initially payable to First State Bank NM (First State), with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) acting as nominee for the lender. Duran executed a promissory note for $322,700 with a fixed interest rate, which was secured by this mortgage. Payments ceased on May 1, 2008, leading to a notice of intent to accelerate the payment due to serious default. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. (BAC), the assignee of the mortgage, initiated foreclosure proceedings after Defendants failed to cure the default (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (BAC): Argued that Defendants failed to present evidence creating an issue of fact warranting a trial, asserting their right to enforce the note and mortgage, and claiming ownership and holder in due course status of the note and mortgage (paras 8-17).
• Defendants-Appellants (Duran and Montano): Contended that the affidavit supporting BAC's motion for summary judgment was not based on first-hand knowledge, challenged BAC's right to enforce the note and mortgage, disputed BAC's status as a holder in due course, and argued the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to BAC's failure to produce the original promissory note (paras 7-18).

Legal Issues

• Whether the affidavit of Gregory J. Price was based on sufficient personal knowledge to support summary judgment.
• Whether BAC had the right to enforce the note and mortgage, considering the role and authority of MERS in assigning the mortgage.
• Whether BAC qualifies as a holder in due course of the note.
• Whether the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to BAC's alleged failure to produce the original promissory note (paras 7-18).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of BAC, holding that Defendants failed to present evidence that would create an issue of fact warranting a trial (para 1).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, and JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, concurring):
  The court found that BAC provided sufficient prima facie evidence through the affidavit of Gregory J. Price, demonstrating BAC's ownership and right to enforce the note and mortgage. Defendants' challenges to the affidavit's validity were dismissed due to lack of specific evidentiary facts (paras 8-10).
  The court rejected Defendants' arguments against MERS's role and authority, affirming MERS's right to assign the mortgage to BAC and dismissing concerns over the legitimacy of the assignment process (paras 11-13).
  The court determined the note to be a negotiable instrument, with BAC as the rightful holder in due course, entitled to enforce the note regardless of the assignment of the mortgage (paras 14-17).
  The court dismissed Defendants' jurisdictional challenge, noting that BAC had produced the original note as required, and found no merit in the argument for dismissal based on the absence of the original promissory note (paras 18-19).