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 mortgage foreclosure where the Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, acting as Trustee for Novastar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2007-1, sought to foreclose on a mortgage held by the Defendant, Carlos M. Quiñones. The Defendant appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Santa Fe County, Barbara J. Vigil, District Judge, March 29, 2011: Summary judgment granted in favor of the Plaintiff.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that they are the holder of the note and entitled to summary judgment in a mortgage foreclosure case.
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that issues of material fact existed that would preclude the grant of summary judgment and argued that the Plaintiff had not established that it was the holder of the note at the time of foreclosure.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's change of theory on appeal regarding the Plaintiff’s holder status of the mortgage is permissible.
• Whether the Plaintiff adequately established its holder status of the note to justify summary judgment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, J. (Michael D. Bustamante, J., and Michael E. Vigil, J., concurring):
  The Court addressed the Defendant's attempt to change his theory on appeal, which is not permissible under established precedent. The Defendant initially did not argue the Plaintiff’s holder status in lower court proceedings or in his docketing statement but raised it as a new argument on appeal. The Court found that even if the Defendant were allowed to change his theory on appeal, his argument would still fail because the complaint, the motion for summary judgment, and the supporting affidavit all stated that the Plaintiff is the holder of the note. The Court noted that the Defendant did not provide any evidence to counter the Plaintiff's assertion of being the note holder, which is a requirement for shifting the burden back to the Plaintiff. The Court affirmed the summary judgment based on the reasons stated in the second calendar notice and the lack of persuasive arguments or evidence from the Defendant to demonstrate the existence of specific evidentiary facts that would necessitate a trial on the merits.