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 King Ung and Mui Ung-Tru were ordered by the district court to have their home foreclosed upon after a trial on the merits. They contested the standing of Bank of America, N.A. (BOA) to file a foreclosure action and enforce the promissory note against their home.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants-Appellants: Argued that BOA lacked standing to enforce the promissory note against their home (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (BOA): Demonstrated that it was the holder of the note at the time of filing its foreclosure complaint, thereby having standing to enforce the note (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether BOA had standing to enforce the promissory note against Defendants’ home.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment ordering foreclosure on Defendants' home (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judge Briana H. Zamora, with Judges Jennifer L. Attrep and Zachary A. Ives concurring, found substantial evidence supporting the district court’s conclusion that BOA had standing to enforce the promissory note. The Court applied a three-prong test to determine standing, focusing on the injury in fact requirement which necessitates a party to demonstrate injury in a direct and concrete way. BOA met this requirement by producing the original note at trial and proving it was the holder of the note when it filed its foreclosure complaint. The Court also noted that BOA was the sole holder of interest for the note and mortgage from December 2006 until the trial in April 2018, and it never transferred or sold its interest in the note, thereby establishing a direct and concrete injury (paras 2-5).