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 2016, Dianah Rowland, as the personal representative of Lee Rowland's estate, was involved in a foreclosure action on a property by Ditech Financial LLC. Rowland assigned the estate’s right of redemption to 1776 Properties, LLC in 2017 but was not paid for this assignment. A subsequent foreclosure action in 2018 led to the property's sale in 2021. Before the sale, Rowland attempted to rescind the 2017 assignment and assigned the redemption rights to Guera Properties, LLC. Both Guera and 1776 filed petitions to redeem the property, leading to the legal dispute (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The court granted summary judgment in favor of 1776 Properties, LLC, finding the 2017 assignment of redemption rights valid and enforceable, and thus giving 1776 priority in redeeming the property (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (Guera Properties, LLC): Argued that the 2017 Assignment to 1776 was unenforceable due to lack of consideration, as 1776’s promise to pay was illusory. Contended that it had a valid right of redemption based on a subsequent assignment from Rowland (paras 5, 12).
• Defendant-Appellee (1776 Properties, LLC): Argued that Guera lacked standing to challenge the validity of the 2017 Assignment on consideration grounds and maintained that its promise to pay Rowland constituted adequate consideration. Claimed entitlement to redeem the property as the first party with a valid right of redemption (paras 5, 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the 2017 Assignment of the right of redemption to 1776 was valid.
• Whether Guera Properties, LLC had standing to challenge the validity of the 2017 Assignment on consideration grounds.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order, finding the 2017 Assignment invalid for lack of consideration, thus ruling in favor of Guera Properties, LLC (para 17).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Kristina Bogardus writing and Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Jacqueline R. Medina concurring, held that:
  Guera had standing to challenge the validity of the 2017 Assignment because it was necessary to assert its own right of redemption. The court distinguished this case from others where a debtor lacks standing to challenge an assignment, noting that to enforce a right to redeem, a party must establish the validity and priority of its own right, which may require challenging the validity or priority of a competing party’s right (paras 7-11).
  The 2017 Assignment lacked consideration because 1776’s promise to pay Rowland was contingent upon its discretion to redeem the property, making the promise illusory. Since 1776 had no obligation to redeem, its promise to pay did not constitute adequate consideration, rendering the assignment invalid (paras 12-15).