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

• In 2016, Wells Fargo initiated a foreclosure action on a mortgage secured by a promissory note executed by homeowners Douglas Cain and Donald Hastie. Wells Fargo alleged the note was lost but claimed entitlement to enforce it, supported by a lost note affidavit and a copy of the note. The mortgage was later assigned to LSF9 Master Participation Trust (LSF9), which sought to substitute Wells Fargo as plaintiff and moved for default judgment. The district court required LSF9 to file for summary judgment with additional briefing on the lost note affidavit. LSF9's motion for summary judgment was denied due to lack of standing, leading to the dismissal of the case. LSF9's subsequent motion to reconsider was also denied, prompting this appeal (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• Wells Fargo Financial New Mexico, Inc. v. Douglas L. Cain et al.: Wells Fargo filed a complaint for foreclosure, which was later assigned to LSF9. The district court denied LSF9's motion for default judgment and subsequent motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case due to LSF9's lack of standing (paras 2-4).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (LSF9): Argued that Wells Fargo had established standing through a lost note affidavit and that the transfer of enforcement rights during foreclosure proceedings did not revoke standing. Asserted that it did not need to prove its own standing as it assumed Wells Fargo's litigation position (para 5).
• Defendants-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether Wells Fargo established standing to enforce the lost note at the time of filing the foreclosure complaint.
• Whether LSF9, as an assignee, has standing to enforce the lost note pursuant to Section 55-3-309 (paras 6, 10).

Disposition

• The district court’s order denying LSF9’s motion to reconsider is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to enter summary and default judgment in favor of LSF9 (para 13).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, Gerald E. Baca, and Katherine A. Wray, unanimously found that Wells Fargo had established standing to enforce the lost note by satisfying the requirements of Section 55-3-309(a)-(b). The Court held that as an assignee, LSF9 has standing to enforce the lost note, aligning with the Court's recent holding in CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Garcia. The Court reasoned that the Uniform Commercial Code should be liberally construed to allow assignees to enforce lost notes, supporting the expansion of commercial practices and making law uniform among jurisdictions. The decision was based on statutory construction and the principles of standing under New Mexico law, as well as public policy considerations (paras 6-12).