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 February 2008, the Defendant borrowed $150,000 from First Community Bank to refinance construction financing for his home in Rowe, New Mexico, securing the loan with a mortgage. After the bank failed, its assets, including the Defendant's loan, were sold to U.S. Bank. By February 2012, the Defendant was four months delinquent on his mortgage. He made a payment, which the Bank deemed insufficient and returned, initiating foreclosure proceedings shortly thereafter (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellee (U.S. Bank): Argued that it had standing to bring its foreclosure action, supported by the affidavit of Melanie R. Manalansan, and that the Defendant's counterclaims lacked merit (paras 6, 12-17).
• Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant (Perry A. Kesler): Contended that the Bank lacked standing to sue, questioned the personal knowledge of the Bank's affiant, and argued that the Bank wrongfully refused his mortgage payment, violating the Home Loan Protection Act (HLPA) and Unfair Practices Act (UPA). The Defendant also raised issues with the court's handling of discovery and procedural matters (paras 7, 9, 18-20, 23).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Bank had standing to bring its foreclosure action.
• Whether the affidavit submitted in support of the Bank’s motion was prepared based on the affiant’s personal knowledge.
• Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment before ruling on discovery motions and before discovery was complete.
• Whether the Defendant properly raised claims under the HLPA and UPA such that a genuine issue of material fact existed on Defendant’s claims.
• Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment to the Bank when it failed to rule on the motion for more than sixty days, contrary to Rule 1-054.1 NMRA (paras 9).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Bank on all grounds except for the Defendant's HLPA and UPA claims. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment on these two claims and remanded the matter for further proceedings (para 29).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the Bank had demonstrated standing to bring the foreclosure action by attaching a specially indorsed promissory note and other relevant documents to its complaint. The court also found no merit in the Defendant's challenge to the affiant's personal knowledge and dismissed concerns over the district court's handling of discovery and procedural matters as not affecting the substantial rights of the parties. However, the Court of Appeals identified a genuine issue of material fact regarding the Defendant's HLPA and UPA claims, specifically concerning the Bank's refusal to credit the Defendant's payment, warranting reversal and remand on those claims alone (paras 10-28).