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 the enforcement and ownership rights of a mortgage and note between Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Plaintiff) and Maria Cristina Coello-Pagan (Defendant). The Defendant challenged the Plaintiff's standing, arguing that a blank indorsement to a yet-to-be-named party or "bearer" did not confer rights to the entire instrument of the note and mortgage.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the transfer of the note to a yet-to-be-named party or "bearer" through a "blank indorsement," while the mortgage remained with a named party, did not give the Plaintiff rights to the entire instrument of the note and mortgage (para 2).
• Plaintiff: Asserted standing as both the holder of the note, indorsed in blank, and the named entity to whom the mortgage was transferred, thereby having the rights of enforcement and ownership to the entire instrument of the note and mortgage (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff has standing to enforce the entire instrument of the note and mortgage when the note was transferred to it by a blank indorsement.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant (para 4).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Jennifer L. Attrep, Zachary A. Ives, and Shammara H. Henderson, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The Court found the Defendant's argument regarding the blank indorsement and standing to lack merit. It held that the Plaintiff, being both the holder of the note indorsed in blank and the named entity to whom the mortgage was transferred, had established its rights of enforcement and ownership to the entire instrument of the note and mortgage. The Defendant's repetition of her initial arguments without presenting new facts, law, or persuasive argument did not meet the burden required to overturn the proposed disposition (paras 1-4).