U.S. Bank v. Price
36,183
| N.M. Ct. App. | Jun 29, 2017Background
- U.S. Bank, N.A. (Plaintiff) sued Brenda C. Price (Defendant) to foreclose a mortgage; the district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff and denied summary judgment for Price. The case had previously been dismissed for failure to prosecute and later reinstated by the district court.
- The district court found good cause to reinstate under Rule 1-041(E)(2) NMRA; Price challenges that reinstatement on appeal but did not preserve that challenge below.
- Central substantive dispute on appeal: whether Plaintiff had standing to bring the foreclosure action at the time it filed the complaint—i.e., was Plaintiff the holder/owner of the note when suit was filed.
- Plaintiff filed a copy of the note with a special indorsement to Plaintiff eight days after filing the complaint; the note itself included an undated special indorsement. Plaintiff also submitted an affidavit asserting possession/ownership, which the Court of Appeals found ambiguous.
- The Court of Appeals concluded the affidavit and the undated indorsement were susceptible to multiple reasonable inferences about when the indorsement occurred, so summary judgment for either side was improper; the panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reinstatement under Rule 1-041(E)(2) (procedural preservation) | Reinstatement was proper; district court found good cause | Price argues reinstatement was improper | Not reached on merits — Price failed to preserve the challenge below; appellate review declined |
| Standing at time complaint filed (ownership/possession of note) | The undated special indorsement and affidavits show Plaintiff was holder when suit filed | Price contends Plaintiff lacked standing when complaint was filed | Reversed grant of summary judgment to Plaintiff; affidavit and undated indorsement leave reasonable competing inferences — summary judgment inappropriate |
| Relation-back of indorsed note filed after complaint (Rule 1-015) | The indorsed note filed eight days after complaint should relate back to the complaint date | Relating back would circumvent requirement to show standing as of filing | Court rejects Plaintiff’s relation-back argument; no authority supports applying Rule 1-015 to prove standing at filing; disputed standing persists |
| Statute of limitations / bankruptcy stay and request for monetary award | Plaintiff did not address | Price raised statute-of-limitations/bankruptcy stay and requested $1,000,000 | Not considered: limitations issue not preserved/amended in docketing statement; monetary award outside appellate authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Summit Elec. Supply Co. v. Rhodes & Salmon, P.C., 148 N.M. 590 (2010) (good-cause standard for reinstatement after dismissal)
- Bank of New York v. Romero, 320 P.3d 1 (2014) (standing in foreclosure must be shown as of the filing date)
- Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Johnston, 369 P.3d 1046 (2016) (distinguishing holder’s ability to enforce a note from proving ownership at complaint filing)
- Marquez v. Gomez, 116 N.M. 626 (1991) (summary judgment improper when reasonable, conflicting inferences can be drawn)
- In re Adoption of Doe, 100 N.M. 764 (1984) (court may assume no authority exists if party cites none for a proposition)