CITIMORTGAGE, INC. V. JONES
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions
on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this
electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other
deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and
does not include the filing date.
CITIMORTAGE, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AARON JONES and JENNIFER JONES,
Defendants-Appellants.
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY,
Daylene A. Marsh, District Judge
Little, Bradley & Nesbitt, PA, Sandra
A. Brown, Albuquerque, NM, Justin B. Breen, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee
Vanessa L. Deniro, Albuquerque, NM, for
Appellants
TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge. WE CONCUR:
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
AUTHOR: TIMOTHY L. GARCIA
{1} Appellants are
appealing from a district court order denying their motion to set aside a
foreclosure judgment. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm.
Appellants have responded with a memorandum in opposition. Plaintiff has filed
a memorandum in support. We affirm.
{2} Appellants continue
to argue that Plaintiff (Citimortgage) did not have standing to bring the
foreclosure action, and therefore the foreclosure decree is invalid. Appellants
are correct that under recent cases decided by our Supreme Court and this
Court, an entity wishing to foreclose on a mortgage must establish that, at the
time the foreclosure action is filed, the entity had the right to enforce the
promissory note underlying the mortgage.
See Bank of New York v. Romero,
2014-NMSC-007, ¶ 17,
320 P.3d 1;
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Beneficial
New Mexico Inc.,
2014-NMCA-090, ¶ 8,
335 P.3d 217.
{3} In this case,
attached to Citimortgage’s July 2011complaint was a copy of the original
promissory note. [RP 1, 7] The note was indorsed by IWAYLOAN, LP. in an allonge
dated December 10, 2009. [RP 9] Also included was language identifying
Citimortgage as the payee. [RP 9] As our Supreme Court observed, this payee
designation makes the identified payee a “holder” of the note for purposes of
enforcement.
Bank of New York,
2014-NMSC-007, ¶ 21.
{4} In its memorandum
in opposition, Appellants continue to argue that a new note was executed in
2013, containing a blank indorsement. Citimortgage points out that this would
simply make the note bearer paper, which would still give it standing under
Romero
because it was the holder of the note. [MIS 2-3]
See id., ¶ 24. In
addition, as we stated above,
Romero requires that a party establish the
right to enforce the note “at the time it filed suit.”
Id. ¶ 17.
Plaintiff’s complaint was filed in 2011, and the documents attached to the
complaint established standing under
Romero.
{5} For the reasons set
forth above, we affirm.
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge