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 2008, Defendants executed a promissory note secured by a mortgage with Lewallen Mortgage, Inc. By 2010, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. was servicing the loan. Defendants failed to make a payment due in January 2011 and requested a loan modification, which SunTrust declined. SunTrust notified Defendants of default and later initiated a foreclosure action, which was dismissed without prejudice in 2015 for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) was later assigned the mortgage and initiated the present foreclosure action in March 2016 (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County: Summary judgment for Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) against Defendants Bernie and Michael Trissell in a foreclosure action.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that it had standing to foreclose, made a prima facie case for summary judgment on its claim and Defendants' affirmative defenses, and contended that Defendants failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment (paras 8-9, 11, 21, 23).
• Defendants: Contended that Plaintiff lacked standing, the district court erred by entering summary judgment against them on their affirmative defenses, and they should have been allowed to conduct additional discovery before the court ruled on Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether Plaintiff had standing to foreclose on the mortgage.
• Whether Defendants bore the burden of showing a genuine dispute of material fact on their affirmative defenses to preclude summary judgment.
• Whether Defendants were entitled to conduct additional discovery before the court ruled on Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion (paras 7-28).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's entry of summary judgment for Plaintiff, holding that Plaintiff had standing, Defendants failed to carry their burden regarding their affirmative defenses, and Defendants did not preserve their argument for additional discovery (paras 7, 19, 28).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Ives, J., with Zamora, J., concurring, and Yohalem, J., dissenting, held that Plaintiff demonstrated standing by attaching a note with a blank indorsement to its initial complaint. The Court clarified the allocation of summary judgment burdens, stating that once a plaintiff-movant makes a prima facie case on its claim alone, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact regarding any affirmative defense. The Court found that Defendants failed to carry their burden on their affirmative defenses and did not preserve their argument for additional discovery. Yohalem, J., dissented, arguing that the majority's decision deviates from established precedent requiring plaintiffs seeking summary judgment to also address defendants' affirmative defenses (paras 2, 8-9, 11-29).