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 January 2010, Butkovich, both individually and on behalf of the Trust she controlled, executed a reverse mortgage loan on her home. The loan terms included an origination fee and payments to the current mortgage holder and Butkovich. In 2016, Butkovich defaulted on the loan by failing to make property insurance and tax payments. After her death in 2018, Defendant, as successor trustee, contested the receipt and deposit of the payout check from the reverse mortgage (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of McKinley County: Granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff, Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC, in an in rem foreclosure action.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that Defendant had only reviewed bank records for a single month, six years after the reverse mortgage, and had not provided evidence to counter Plaintiff's prima facie case of liability on the promissory note. Plaintiff also submitted an affidavit attesting the payout check was sent to Butkovich (paras 4-5, 10).
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that there was no evidence Butkovich received the $58,837.88 payout check, arguing a failure of consideration under the reverse mortgage contract. Defendant relied on personal affidavit and the "mailbox rule" to support claims (paras 4, 6, 11-12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in its calculation of payout funds in granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff, specifically, whether Plaintiff proved that Butkovich received or deposited the payout check from the reverse mortgage (para 1).
• Whether Defendant provided sufficient evidence to counter Plaintiff's prima facie case of liability on the promissory note (paras 9-11).

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court in favor of Plaintiff, Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC (para 14).

Reasons

• Per BLACK, Judge Pro Tem (HANISEE, J., and BOGARDUS, J., concurring): The Court held that Plaintiff met its initial burden on summary judgment by making a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment. The burden then shifted to Defendant, who failed to provide admissible evidence to counter Plaintiff’s claim. Defendant's reliance on the "mailbox rule" was deemed misplaced, and his evidence was insufficient to defeat summary judgment. The Court also found that Defendant's attempt to plead the defense of offer and acceptance in a motion for rehearing was unsupported by proof and thus insufficient to deny summary judgment (paras 7-13).