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 foreclosure action where Selene Finance LP (Plaintiff) sought summary judgment against Mary L. Duran (Defendant), who was self-represented, and default judgment against Rudolph R. Duran, his estate, and heirs. The note in question was originally payable to Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp., with Bank of America, N.A. filing the initial and amended foreclosure complaints, attaching copies of the note indorsed in blank. Selene Finance LP was later substituted as the plaintiff and claimed to be the holder of the note, with their attorney affirming possession of the original note (paras 1, 3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (Selene Finance LP): Argued that it was the holder of the note and entitled to judgment as a matter of law, supported by an affidavit from their attorney stating possession of the original note (para 3).
• Defendant-Appellant (Mary L. Duran): Challenged Plaintiff’s standing to bring the foreclosure action, arguing that physical possession of the note was insufficient to establish standing and questioned the adequacy of the Bank’s attachment of a copy of the note and its production at summary judgment (paras 3, 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff had standing to bring a foreclosure action at the time the suit was filed.
• Whether the district court erred by not holding a hearing on the motion for summary judgment, by not requiring Plaintiff to present the original note in open court, and by not having a hearing on the motion to substitute Plaintiff as the current plaintiff (para 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Mary L. Duran (para 7).

Reasons

• TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge, STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge concurring): The Court found that the Plaintiff made a prima facie case that it was the holder of the note and entitled to judgment as a matter of law, as the note was indorsed in blank and possession of the note was affirmed by Plaintiff’s attorney. The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant’s challenge to Plaintiff’s standing, noting that the law supports the notion that possession of a note indorsed in blank is sufficient for enforcement. The Court also addressed and dismissed Defendant’s procedural concerns regarding the lack of hearings and the process of substituting the Plaintiff, considering these issues abandoned due to Defendant’s failure to respond to the proposed disposition of these issues (paras 3-7).