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

• Polly Mafchir borrowed $227,502 from Nationstar Mortgage LLC (Bank) and defaulted on the repayment around September 2013. Alan Bird acquired the property from Mafchir through a quitclaim deed after the default and sought to intervene in the foreclosure action initiated by the Bank, claiming an interest in the property and challenging the Bank's standing to enforce the note (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Granted summary judgment in favor of Nationstar Mortgage LLC against Alan Bird, and default judgment against Polly Mafchir (para 10).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (Bank): Argued that it had standing to enforce the note as it was in possession of the note at the time the complaint was filed. Bank provided affidavits and business records to establish its continuous possession of the note and its status as the holder of the note (paras 5, 8).
• Defendant-Appellant (Bird): Contended that the Bank lacked standing to enforce the note, arguing that the Bank had sold the note and failed to demonstrate it reacquired the note before filing the complaint. Bird also challenged the admissibility of the Bank's evidence and the district court's jurisdiction over the matter (paras 6, 7, 12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Bank had standing to enforce the note against Mafchir and Bird (para 12).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Nationstar Mortgage LLC and against Alan Bird (para 30).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Jacqueline R. Medina, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Megan P. Duffy concurring, held that the Bank made a prima facie case of standing to enforce the note by demonstrating it was the holder of the note. The court found that Bird failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact that would require a trial on the merits. The court concluded that the Bank's possession of the note indorsed in blank and the original payee status established its right to enforce the note. Bird's arguments against the Bank's standing, including the challenge to the admissibility of evidence and the authenticity of the note, were found to be without merit. The court also noted that Bird's standing to challenge was not an issue on appeal due to the Bank's stipulation to Bird's intervention and did not address it further (paras 13-29).