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 U.S. Bank, as Trustee relating to the Chevy Chase Funding LLC Mortgage Backed Certificates, Series 2005-3, sought summary judgment against Jay Martin Payne, the Defendant-Appellant. The Defendant failed to dispute any material facts presented in the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the Defendant failed to dispute any material facts in the motion for summary judgment, establishing the Plaintiff's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the Plaintiff either lacked standing or committed some form of fraud in the prosecution of the case, arguments based on facts not properly asserted or preserved in the record below.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff-Appellee due to the Defendant-Appellant's failure to dispute material facts.
• Whether the Plaintiff-Appellee had standing or committed fraud in the prosecution of the foreclosure action.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment entered by the district court in favor of the Plaintiff-Appellee. The Defendant-Appellant's requests to seal the case record and to excuse the calendaring judge were denied.

Reasons

• TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge concurring):
  The Court proposed to affirm the summary judgment due to the Defendant's failure to dispute material facts in the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (para 1).
  The Defendant's memorandum of objection did not address the failure to respond to the Plaintiff's summary judgment motion but continued to argue on the grounds of lack of standing and alleged fraud by the Plaintiff. These arguments were not considered because they were based on facts not properly asserted or preserved in the record below (para 2).
  The Defendant's request to seal the case as a private estate matter and to excuse the calendaring judge was denied. The Court found no basis for sealing records under Rule 12-314 NMRA and no recognized basis for judicial excusal based on alleged bias from the calendaring judge, as the bias claimed by the Defendant stemmed from disagreement with the Court's proposed summary disposition rather than any extrajudicial source (paras 3-7).