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 Defendant obtained a $415,000 loan secured by a mortgage on her property. She defaulted on her loan payments starting February 1, 2011. Chase, having merged with Chase Home Finance, LLC, which initially notified the Defendant of her default, filed a complaint for foreclosure against the Defendant's property after she defaulted on the loan (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, Francis J. Mathew, District Judge: Entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., permitting foreclosure against the Defendant's property and dismissing the Defendant's counterclaims (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (Chase): Argued that it was the holder in due course of the Note and the mortgagee of the Mortgage, entitled to enforce the Note and proceed with foreclosure (paras 3, 5, 6).
• Defendant-Appellant (Galloway): Challenged Chase’s standing to bring the foreclosure action, arguing that Chase did not demonstrate an unbroken chain of properly recorded assignments of the Mortgage and a parallel unbroken chain of completed Note indorsements. Also filed counterclaims alleging fraudulent inducement (paras 4, 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether Chase has standing to bring the foreclosure action against the Defendant's property.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's Rule 1-060(B) motion, which argued that Chase lacked standing to bring the foreclosure action (para 13).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Stephen G. French authoring the opinion and Judges M. Monica Zamora and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, held that Chase had standing to bring the foreclosure action. The court reasoned that Chase was the holder of the Note at the time it filed the foreclosure complaint, as it was in possession of the Note indorsed in blank, making it payable to bearer. The court distinguished this case from others where the banks were not considered holders of the notes they possessed at the time of filing the complaints for foreclosure. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion or misapply the law by denying the Defendant’s Rule 1-060(B) motion on the grounds that Chase lacked standing to bring the foreclosure action (paras 7-12).