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 action initiated by the original lender against Defendant William F. Roberts in February 2013. The original lender attached an unendorsed copy of the note to its complaint without alleging possession of the original note. Through multiple assignments and/or transfers, Plaintiff US Bank National Association was later substituted as the party in the case. In September 2017, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, producing the original note with two undated indorsements, one in blank, and submitted an affidavit claiming possession of the original note since March 20, 2013. The Defendant challenged Plaintiff’s standing in the case (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that it had established standing by virtue of its possession of the note, which had become a bearer instrument by the time of the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff also contended that the prior parties-plaintiff had established their standing (para 2).
• Defendant-Appellant: Challenged Plaintiff’s standing, specifically attacking Plaintiff’s showing in connection with the motion for summary judgment (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff had standing at the time of the filing of the complaint based on possession of the note (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the award of summary judgment to Plaintiff US Bank National Association and remanded for further proceedings (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (J. Miles Hanisee, J., and Henry M. Bohnhoff, J., concurring): The court found that Plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to establish standing at the time of the filing of the complaint. Despite Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant had indeed challenged standing, and it was Plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate standing as of the time of the filing of the complaint. The court rejected Plaintiff’s reliance on the initial plaintiff’s status as originator of the loan to automatically confer standing, noting that possession of the note was essential for standing. The undated allonges and the affidavit of possession were also found insufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s burden, as they did not establish possession at the time of the filing of the complaint. The court concluded that the record lacked evidence of possession of the note as of the filing date, rendering Plaintiff unable to establish its standing (paras 3-8).