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 dispute over a foreclosure judgment. The Plaintiff, Kondaur Capital, LLC, sought to enforce a foreclosure judgment against the Defendant, who challenged the proceedings, including the standing of the original plaintiff, Fannie Mae, and the validity of the note transfer. The Defendant also argued that the statute of limitations had expired during the litigation (paras 1, 5-6).
Procedural History
- District Court, May 29, 2024: The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, Kondaur Capital, LLC, and required the Defendant to post a supersedeas bond to stay the proceedings (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the district court erred in granting summary judgment due to issues with the original plaintiff's standing, the validity of the note transfer, and the expiration of the statute of limitations. The Defendant also contended that the supersedeas bond should substitute for the foreclosure judgment payment (paras 5-11).
- Plaintiff: Asserted that Fannie Mae had standing as the holder of the note, which was indorsed in blank, and that the Defendant failed to rebut the prima facie case for summary judgment. The Plaintiff also maintained that the statute of limitations did not bar the action (paras 6, 11).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff?
- Was the original plaintiff, Fannie Mae, lacking standing at the time the complaint was filed?
- Should the payment of the supersedeas bond act as a substitute for the foreclosure judgment?
- Did the statute of limitations expire during the litigation, barring the Plaintiff's lawsuit?
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement (paras 1, 12-13).
Reasons
Per Ives J. (Bogardus and Medina JJ. concurring): The Court found that the Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, which the Defendant failed to rebut. The Court noted that Fannie Mae had standing as the holder of the note, indorsed in blank, and that the Defendant's arguments regarding standing and the statute of limitations were unpersuasive. The Court also held that the supersedeas bond served to maintain the status quo during the appeal and did not substitute for the foreclosure judgment payment. The Defendant's additional claims were deemed not viable or moot (paras 6-12).