US Bank v. Hernandez
A-1-CA-36132
| N.M. Ct. App. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- This is an appeal from the district court’s denial of Anke Hernandez’s Rule 1-060(B) NMRA motion to vacate a foreclosure judgment as void.
- Hernandez argued she had timely given a notice of rescission of the loan and that the foreclosure judgment was therefore void.
- The Court of Appeals issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm; Hernandez filed a memorandum in opposition but did not cite controlling authority supporting her position.
- The panel treated one of Hernandez’s raised issues as an unauthorized amendment to the docketing statement and denied the motion to amend as the issue was not viable.
- The court explained rescission is an affirmative defense or equitable remedy that can be forfeited and that even an effective rescission would not necessarily render a foreclosure judgment void under Rule 1-060(B).
- The court relied on Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Johnston to hold that prudential standing in foreclosure is not jurisdictional, so lack of standing does not make a judgment voidable under Rule 1-060(B), and such defenses must be timely raised or are waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred in refusing to vacate foreclosure judgment as void based on defendant's alleged timely rescission | Plaintiff (US Bank) argued the rescission claim does not render the foreclosure judgment void and was not shown to be effective or timely raised | Hernandez argued she timely rescinded the loan and that the judgment was void for that reason | Court held rescission (even if effective) does not show the judgment is void under Rule 1-060(B); affirmed denial |
| Whether district court erred by denying the motion without explanation | Plaintiff implicitly argued no further explanation was required under applicable rules | Hernandez argued the court should have explained its ruling on the Rule 1-060(B) motion | Court held no reversible error; Rule 1-052(A) makes findings unnecessary on such motions and the asserted issue was not viable, so denial to amend docketing statement was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Moore, 782 P.2d 91 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (motions to amend docketing statement raising nonviable issues may be denied)
- State v. Salgado, 817 P.2d 730 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991) (recognition of rule adjustments in procedural practice)
- In re Adoption of Doe, 676 P.2d 1329 (N.M. 1984) (appellants must present argument and authority to raise issues on appeal)
- Branch v. Chamisa Dev. Corp., Ltd., 223 P.3d 942 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (rescission is an equitable remedy or defense that can be forfeited)
- Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Johnston, 369 P.3d 1046 (N.M. 2016) (prudential standing to enforce a promissory note is not jurisdictional; lack of standing does not render a foreclosure judgment void and must be timely raised)