Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Slade
34,727
| N.M. Ct. App. | Apr 20, 2017Background
- Deutsche Bank, as indenture trustee, filed a foreclosure complaint in 2008 against Colette and Curtis Slade based on a note and mortgage showing New Century as lender; the note lacked an indorsement to Deutsche Bank.
- The Slades appeared pro se, did not raise standing or jurisdictional defenses, and failed to file a written response after the court gave them time to retain counsel.
- The district court entered stipulated summary and default judgment, decree of foreclosure, and later confirmed the sale of the mortgaged property; the Slades did not appeal those orders.
- In 2014 the Slades moved under Rule 1-060(B) NMRA to set aside the judgment as void, relying on Bank of New York v. Romero, which had held a foreclosure judgment void where the plaintiff lacked standing.
- The district court agreed, concluded Deutsche Bank lacked standing at filing, dismissed the foreclosure complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and voided the foreclosure decree and sale.
- On appeal the court reversed, holding the district court erred in voiding the final foreclosure judgment for lack of standing in light of subsequent New Mexico Supreme Court guidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lack of standing at filing renders a foreclosure judgment void under Rule 1-060(B)(4) | Deutsche Bank: final judgment cannot be set aside as void for prudential standing; judgment should stand | Slades: Romero supports that lack of standing makes the judgment void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction | Held: Standing in foreclosure is prudential (not jurisdictional); final judgments are not voidable under Rule 1-060(B) for lack of prudential standing (reversal) |
| Whether district court correctly dismissed the foreclosure and voided the sale based on standing | Deutsche Bank: dismissal and voiding were erroneous; relief is unavailable after final judgment and sale confirmed | Slades: no prior challenge; Romero permits voiding for lack of standing even after judgment | Held: district court erred; Slades’ late Rule 1-060(B) attack fails under Johnston and related authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of New York v. Romero, 320 P.3d 1 (N.M. 2014) (held a foreclosure judgment void where plaintiff lacked standing)
- Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co. v. Johnston, 369 P.3d 1046 (N.M. 2016) (clarified standing in foreclosure is prudential and final judgments are not voidable under Rule 1-060(B) for lack of prudential standing)
- Meiboom v. Watson, 994 P.2d 1154 (N.M. 2000) (standard of appellate review for Rule 1-060(B) relief)
- State ex rel. Office of Attorney Gen. v. Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd., 329 P.3d 723 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (a court must set aside a void judgment under Rule 1-060(B)(4))