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

• A business corporation, B.E.I., Inc. (BEI), owned by Doug Bishop, executed a promissory note and mortgage in favor of the Jack Willis Reynolds and Mary Louise Reynolds Revocable Trust Agreement (the Trust) to secure a loan. BEI's corporate status was administratively cancelled due to failure to file annual reports. Bishop made some payments but failed to pay off the balance or property taxes, leading to a tax lien and subsequent sale of the property to Stephen Landau. The Trust sought to foreclose on the mortgage after Landau acquired the property and succeeded in a quiet title action against BEI and Bishop (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• District Court of McKinley County: Judgment on the merits and order for foreclosure sale in favor of the Trust against Stephen D. Landau, Doug Bishop, and B.E.I. Inc.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Landau): Argued that the Trust could not foreclose due to the mortgagor's dissolved corporate status, statute of limitations, discharge of debt by agreement to extend the mortgage, lack of substantial evidence supporting the district court's findings, abuse of discretion in trial scheduling and striking Landau's motion for summary judgment, erroneous judgment based on equity relating to rental income, and cumulative error depriving a fair trial (paras 1, 8-9).
• Appellee (the Trust): Contended that the foreclosure action was timely and valid, supported by the extension of the mortgage and corresponding promissory note, and not barred by the statute of limitations or the mortgagor's dissolved corporate status (paras 10-11, 20-24, 26-32).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Trust could foreclose on a mortgage after the mortgagor's corporate status was administratively cancelled.
• Whether the Trust's foreclosure action was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Whether the agreement to extend the mortgage and corresponding promissory note discharged the mortgagor's debt.
• Whether the district court's findings were supported by substantial evidence.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in trial scheduling and striking Landau's motion for summary judgment.
• Whether the district court erroneously based its judgment on issues of equity relating to rental income Landau made off the property.
• Whether cumulative error deprived Landau of a fair trial (paras 1, 8-9).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and order for foreclosure sale in favor of the Trust (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Medina, J. (Vanzi, J., and Zamora, J., concurring): The court held that the Trust was not barred from foreclosing on the mortgage despite the mortgagor's dissolved corporate status, as New Mexico’s survival statute for business corporations does not contain an express time limit for filing suit against a dissolved corporation. The foreclosure action was timely due to written agreements to defer payment, which tolled the statute of limitations. The court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's findings and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in trial scheduling or in striking Landau's motion for summary judgment. The court also found no error in the district court's consideration of equitable issues relating to rental income or in its cumulative error analysis (paras 20-54).