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 complaint filed by LSF9 Master Participation Trust (Plaintiff) against Pedro Moreno Sr. (Defendant). The complaint was based on an installment contract, specifically a note and mortgage, which the Defendant allegedly defaulted on starting November 1, 2009. The Plaintiff filed the foreclosure complaint on December 11, 2015, which was six years and forty-one days after the alleged default began.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The court denied Plaintiff's motion to reconsider its decision, which had dismissed Plaintiff’s foreclosure complaint as barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by (1) granting Defendant leave to amend his answer to assert the statute of limitations as a defense, (2) dismissing the entire complaint as barred by the statute of limitations, (3) refusing to conclude the statute of limitations was tolled during the thirty days after sending a demand letter, and (4) concluding Plaintiff was judicially estopped from arguing Defendant’s statute of limitations defense had been waived.
• Defendant-Appellee: Successfully amended his answer to include the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense, leading to the dismissal of the foreclosure complaint. Argued against the tolling of the statute of limitations following the notice of default and against the Plaintiff's position on judicial estoppel.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting Defendant leave to amend his answer to assert the statute of limitations as a defense.
• Whether the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s entire complaint as barred by the statute of limitations.
• Whether the statute of limitations was tolled during the thirty days after Plaintiff sent Defendant a demand letter.
• Whether Plaintiff was judicially estopped from arguing Defendant’s statute of limitations defense had been waived.

Disposition

• Affirmed the district court’s decision granting Defendant leave to amend his answer.
• Reversed the district court’s dismissal of the entire complaint as barred by the statute of limitations.
• Held that the statute of limitations was tolled for thirty days after Plaintiff sent Defendant the notice of default.
• Held that the district court erred to the extent it determined Plaintiff was judicially estopped from asserting that Defendant waived the statute of limitations defense.
• Remanded for reinstatement of Plaintiff’s complaint and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Defendant leave to amend his answer, as amendments should be freely allowed when justice requires (paras 2-4). The Court reversed the district court's ruling on the statute of limitations, holding that each missed payment in an installment contract constitutes a new breach, and thus the statute of limitations begins to run separately for each breach (paras 8-10). It was determined that the statute of limitations was tolled for thirty days following the notice of default as required by the terms of the note and applicable law, aligning with precedent that such notices suspend the statute of limitations (paras 11-13). Finally, the Court addressed the issue of judicial estoppel, concluding that the district court erred in applying this doctrine to prevent Plaintiff from arguing that Defendant waived the statute of limitations defense, as Plaintiff had not previously taken a position on the issue (paras 15-18).