1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___

____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: F eb ru ar

y 6, 201 8 4 5 N o. A -1 -C A -3 5518 6 N A TI ON ST A R

M OR TG A GE LL C , d /b /a 7 CHAMPIO N MORTGAG E COMPANY, 8 Pl ai nti ff

-Appe llant, 9 v

. 10 SHE IL A J. O’M ALLEY, 11 De fendant-Appellee, 12 an d 13 TIMOT HY W. O ’MA LLEY , IF LIVIN G; 14 IF DECEAS ED THE UNKNOWN H EI RS 15 OF TI MOTH Y W. O’MALL EY, DECEASED; 16 UN ITED STA TES O F A MERICABYAN D T HRO UGH 17 THE SECRETARY OF HO USING 18 AN D U RBA N D EVE LOP MEN T; OC CU PA NTS 19 OF THE PROPERTY, 20 Defen da nt s. 21 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF TA OS C OUN TY 22 Sa ra h C . Ba ck

us , D ist ri ctJu dg e 23 McC art hy & Hol th us , LLP 24 Jos huaT

. Ch ap pe ll 25 Karen H . W eaver1 Albuquerque, N M

2 Mu rr Si le r & Acco m azzo , P.C. 3 Ja m es P

. E ck el s 4 Jam ie G . S iler 5 De nver, C O 6 Jared D aniel Albert Na jj ar 7 San ta Fe, NM 8 fo r Appe llant 9 D ixo n C S ch oll C Cari llo C P.A. 10 Or lando C. Mar

tinez 11 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 12 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 BOHN HOF F, Judge. 3 { 1} Pl ai nti ff

N at ion star Mortga ge, L L C, d/b /aCh am pio n M ortga ge Co

. 4 (N at ion star) , appe al s the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g su m m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or 5 of De fendant Sheila J. O’ Mall ey. The dist rict court ruled that, pursuant to NMS A 6 1978 , S ec tio n 40 -3 -1 3 ( 1993 ), am ortga ge of r es ident ia l pr ope rty

tha t M rs . 7 O’ Malley ’ s husb and executed in f avor of Na tions tar wa s void because Mrs. O’ Malley 8 did not e xe cu te it

a s we ll. W e hol d th at

the m ortga ge w as va lid , be ca use Mr s. 9 O’ Malley

ear lier had entere d into a sole and separate property ag re ement th at 1 0 t ra n s m

u t ed t h e c o up l e’s co m

m u n i t y p ro p er t y t o h erh u s b an d ’s s ep ar at e p ro p er t y. W e 11 th eref or e rev ers e th e su m

m ary jud gm en t. 12 BACKGRO UND 13 A. Fact ual History 14 { 2} T he sa lie nt f

ac ts are und isp ute d. I n S ep te m be r 2010 , T im oth y (H usband) a nd 15 Sh ei la( W if

e) O ’ Ma ll ey acq uir ed

r es ide nti al pr ope rty

in T ao s, N ewMe xic o ( the 16 Pr ope rty ); the de ed co nve y ed tit le to the m as j oin t te na nts w ithr igh t of sur viv or shi p. 17 A cc or din g to W if

e’ s a ff idavit sup portin g he r m ot i o nf

o r s um m ar y j u d g m en t, H usband 1 8 w as a n a t t o rn e y a n d h a n d l e d t h e c o up l e ’ s a s s e t s a n d f i n a n c e s . I n e a r l y 2 0 12, the 19 O ’ Ma lle y s w er e int er es te d inpur ch as ing a n adj oin ing lot

. “ A t tha t t im e, m y hus ba nd19 W ithar ev er se m ortga ge loan tr an sa ct ion , the de bto r doe s no t 1 20 m ak e an y

m onthly

paym en ts o f pr inc ipa l and in te re st, a nd i nst ea d th e 21 int er es t a cc um

ula te s. Upon a spec if

ie d e ve nt, e . g. , the de ath of the de bto r( s) , the 22 de bt b ec om es due

. Unit ed S tate s F ed

. Trad e Co m

m ’n, “ Rev ers e Mo rtg ag es ,” av ai lab le 2 1 ha d m e s i g n s o m e d o c u m e n t s i n o r d e r t o p u r c h a s e t h e a d j a c e n t l o t a nd c om

bin e it 2 wit h t he Pro pe rty.” One o f th os e p ap ers ap pa ren tl y was a “ SOLE AND SEPARATE 3 PR O PE RT Y A G RE E MEN T A N D CO N V E Y A

N CE ” (S SP A C) , w hic h Hus ba nd and 4 W ife exec uted in th e presence of a notary on March 7 , 2 0 1 2 . The SS PA C provides 5 as f oll ow s: 6 Pu rs u an tt o [N M SA 1 9 7 8 , S ec t i o n 4 0 -3 -8 (A )( 5 ) ( 1 9 9 0 )], T i m o t h y W. 7 O ’ Ma lle y

a nd S he ila

J. O ’ Ma lle y , hus ba nd and wi fe , a gr ee tha t the 8 property

described as [P roperty ’ s legal description] is here by designated 9 as the separate pro p er t y of T im othyW . O ’ Malley . S heila J. O ’ Malley 1 0 h er eb y ex p re s s l y g ra n t s an d co n v eys t h e ab o v e p ro p er t y t o Ti m o t h y W. 11 O’ Malley

with special warr anty

covenants. Sheila J. O’ Malley further, 12 ex pr es sly

w ai ve s, r el inquis he s and r el ea se s any a nd a ll ri ght , ti tle , c la im 13 or interest in and to the above described property heretofore or herea fter 14 ac qui re d. 15 { 3} T he c ont em

pla te d pu rc ha se of the a dj oin ing lot did not oc cur. I nst ea d, on Apr il 16 16, 2012, Husband executed i n favor of MetL ife H om e L oans, a division of MetL ife 17 Bank, N .A . (MetL ife), an “ Adj ustable Rate N ote (H om e E quityConversion)” and an 18 “ Adj ustable Rate Deed o f Trust (H om e Equity Conversion).” The d eed o f trust states 19 tha t, “ T H IS D E E D O F T RU ST SE CU RE S A RE V E RS E MO RT G A G E L O A N , ” an d 20 the parties otherwise c haracte rize the tr ansaction as a reverse m ortgage loan 21 transaction. Both the SSPA C and the deed of trust (Re verse Mortgage) w ere 119 at ht tp :/ /www.co ns um er.ft c.g ov /a rti cl es /0 19 2- rev ers e-m or tg ag es . 3 1 re co rd ed

w iththe T ao s C ounty Cl er k on Apr il 20, 201 2. T he S SP A C’ s and R ev er se 2 Mor tga ge ’ s r ec or din g in fo rm at ionsho w f ili ng t im es of

2:0 8:2 5 p. m . a nd 2 :08 :27 3 p . m., r e s p e c t i v e l y. 4 { 4} O n June 1, 201 2, H usband d ee de d th e Pr ope rty to him se lf an d W if

e “ as j oin t 5 tenants with right of surviv orship, ” i. e. , the dee d returned the Propertyto its pre6 Marc h 7, 201 2, ow ne rs hip status

. 7 { 5} On O ctober 22, 2012 , MetL ife assigned th e Rever se Mortgage to Na tions tar, 8 which is a business nam e of Cham pion Mortgage Com

p an y. T he assignm ent was 9 re co rd ed

on N ove m

be r 8, 201 2. 10 { 6} In the interim , H usband died on June 30, 2014 . W ife states in her a ffidavit that 11 she was not aw are o f th e re verse m ortgage transaction unti l som etim e af ter her 12 husb and’ s passing when she re ceived corre spon dence fr om Na tions tar. 13 B. Pr ocedur al History 14 { 7} InD ec em

be r 2014, Na ti on star fi le d it s c om pla int w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt, 15 se ek ing aj udgm en t f

or ec los ing on i ts s ec ur ity

int er es t i n the Pr ope rty

pur suant t o th e 16 Re ve rs e Mor

tga ge a nd a

uth or iz at ionto se ll the P ro pe rty to sa tis fy the und er ly ing de bt 17 that Nationstar alleged totaled approxim ately $375 ,000. Na tions tar did no t claim that 18 W ife w as personally liable for the debt. In her answer , W ife generally denied or stated4

1 her lack of kno wledge w ith respect to the com plaint’s a llegations , but also asserted 2 wit ho ut ela bo rat io n a ffi rm at iv e d efen se s o f “ la ckan d fa il ur e o f co ns id erat io n,” 3 “ m istake,” and “ fraudulent conduct and bad faith” on the part of N ationstar. 4 { 8} InD ec em

be r 2015 , W if

e fi le d am oti on (the Mo tio n) to dis m iss the c om pla int 5 fo r fa ilure to sta te a cl ai m , or in the a lte rn at ive , f or sum m ar y j udgm en t. Ba se d so le ly 6 o n h e r a f o r e m e n t i o n e da f

f i d a v i tt e s t i mo n y t h a t“my h u s b a n dh a dme s i g n s o me 7 do cu m en ts in ord e r to pu rch as e th e ad jacen t l ot an d c om

bi ne it wit h t he Pro pe rty,” 8 W ife asserted in her statem ent of undis puted m aterial f acts that, “ Mr. O’ Malley

had 9 [M rs . ] O ’ Ma lle y sig n a [S SP A C] unde r the pr et en se tha t i t w as ne ce ssary to fa ci lit at e 10 the purchase of the adj acent lot and com bine it w ith the Property .” How ever, in her 11 m oti on W if

e did not oth er w ise cl ai m , or

e ve n su gge st, f

ra udul en t or

oth er ne fari ous 12 co nduc t onthe part

of H usband, m

uc h le ss M et L if

e. O n th e co ntr ar

y , he r ar gum en t 13 w as str ic tly

le ga l: the Pr ope rty w as c om m uni ty pr ope rty ; purs ua nt t o S ec tio n 40 -3 -1 3 14 an d N MS A 197 8, Sect ion47- 1- 7 ( 1901 ), the Re ve rs e Mor tga ge w as voi d bo th 15 because Wif

e d id not sign it and because th e March 7, 20 12, SSPAC wa s not recorded 16 be fo re the Re ve rs e Mor tga ge w as e xe cu te d. S im ilarl y , she c ont en de d th at , be ca use 17 the Jun e 1, 2012 , de ed re -c onve y ed the Pr ope rty to H usband and W if e, the sub se que nt 18 as sig nm en t of the Mor tga ge fr om Me tL if

e to N at ion star w as voi d as wel l bec au se 19 both Husband and W ife fa iled to sig n it. O n the sam e day , Wife m oved for a5

1 protectiv e order e xcusing her fr om respondin g to what she chara cterize d as 2 “ volu m inou s sets of discovery ” propoun ded by Na tions tar until after the district court 3 ru le d onhe r Mot ion

. 4 { 9} Na tions tar tim ely responded in o p p ositio n to the m otion for protective order 5 but not the Mo tio n. H ow ev er , on Janua ry 21, 2016 , N at ion star m ove d f or le av e to f ile 6 a re spon se to the Mo tio n w ithac opy of the pr opos ed subs tanti ve r es pons e at ta ch ed

. 7 Na tions tar ar gued therein that: pursuant to Sec tion 4 0-3-8(A) (5), the Property wa s 8 t ra n s mu t e d t o Hu s b an d ’s s ep ar at e p ro p er t y o n Ma rc h 7 , 2 0 1 2 , a s a r es u l to f Wi fe ’s 9 ex ec uti on o f the SS PA C; the SS PA C w as e ff ec tiv e as a ga ins t W if

e notw ith standi ng 10 the f ac t tha t it w as not im

m ed ia te ly re co rd ed ; Se ct ion 40- 3- 13 an d Se ct ion47- 1- 7 di d 11 not in validate the Reverse Mortgage because as of April 16, 2012, the Property wa s 12 no lon ger com

m unityproperty

and, am ong o ther rea sons , the S SPA C w as not a power 13 of a tto rn ey ; be ca

use the Re ve rs e Mor

tga ge w as not co m

m uni ty pr ope rty , S ec tio n 40

- 14 3- 13 d id n ot i nva lid at e the O ct obe r 22, 2012 , as sig nm en t. N at ion star did not dis put e 15 W if e’ s st at em en t of

und isp ute d m at er ia l f

ac ts. H ow ev er , N at ion star re que ste d th at , 16 ass um i ng t he di str i c t c ourt di d no t de ny t he M ot i on on t he ba si s of these legal 17 ar gum en ts p ur suant t o R ule 1- 056( F) N MR

A , the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d po stp one 18 ru lin g on the r eque st f or sum m ar y j udgm en t un til a ft er

N at ion star ha d an op portun ity 1 9 t o c o n du c td i s c o v e ry.6

1 { 10} T he dis tr ic t c ourt sc he dul ed am oti ons he ar ing f

or February

3, 201 6. T he 2 m or nin g of the he ar in g, N at ion star’ s c ouns el f ile d an a ff

idavit pur suant t o R

ule 1- 3 056( F) , a sse rt ing tha t, in or de r to r es pond f ull y to W if e’ s sum m ar y j udgm en t r eque st, 4 Na tions tar needed answ ers to the discovery it alrea dy

had propou nded—and which 5 wa s the subject of W ife’ s protectiv e order m otion —and m ight n eed additional 6 dis co ve ry

r eg ardi ng “ the f

ac ts s ur ro undi ng . . . D ef

en da nt’ s a cquis iti on o f the 7 pr ope rty

a t iss ue , t he ex ec uti on and r ec or din g of the [ SS PA C] , the e xe cu tio n and 8 re co rd ing of

the [ Re ve rs e] Mo rt ga ge , . . . a nd the r ec onve y an ce of the pr ope rty

to 9 [Hu sb an d a nd W ife ]. ” 10 { 11} D ur ing the he ar ing , the dis tr ic t c ou rt st at ed tha t, in vie w of the a ff idavit a nd 11 doc um en ts atta ch ed

a nd r ef er re d to in the Mo tion, it w oul d tr ea t the Mo tio n a s on e 1 2 fo r s u m

m ar y ju d g m en t

. Th e c o u rt as k ed Wif e’s co u n s el t o ad d re s s Na t i o n s t ar ’s 13 argum ent that it would need additi onal tim e to conduct di s co v er y. W ife’ s counsel 14 sta te d that he did not be lie ve the re w as a disp ute d issue of f ac t tha t w as ne ce ssary

to 15 re sol ve the c as e, but

a lso a rg ue d th at

the Ru le 1- 056( F) af

fi da vit w as not suf fi ci en tly 16 specific a nd

N a t i on st a r

h a d no td i sp ut e d W i f

e ’ s st a t e m e nt

o f u nd i sp ut e d m a t e r i al 17 facts. The district court characte rized W ife’ s m otion as a legal ar g u m en t, but then 18 indicated its un derstanding that W ife’ s posit ion w as that she signed the SS PA C under 19 fa lse pr et en se s, tha t s he th ough t i t w as e xe cu te d f or pur pose s of a cquir ing the7

1 ad jo i n i n g l o tan di twa s n o tg i v en fo r p u rp o s es o f t h e r ev er s e mor t g ag e. Wif e’s 2 co unse l r es pond ed

by statin g th at

tho se f ac ts w er e not ne ed ed to rul e on the m oti on. 3 { 12} T he dis tr ic t c ourt the n r ule d th at it w oul d gr an t W if

e’ s m oti on. A s gr ound s f

or 4 its ruling , the co u rt stated that W ife had m ade a prim a fa cie showing that she was 5 en tit le d to summ ar

y j udgm en t and tha t N at ion star ha d no t c om e fo rw ar d w itha ny 6 fa ct s to r eb ut tha t show ing an d that it w oul d not be a ble to pr of

fe r an y f ac ts e ve n if 7 it wa s perm itted additi onal discov ery . I n its written order, the district court deem ed 8 W ife’ s statem ent of undis puted m aterial facts adm itted by Na tions tar, and stated that 9 W if e ha d m ad e a pr im a fa ci e show ing of en tit le m en t to s um m ar y j udgm en t ba se d on 10 Section 40-3-13, Nations tar had not rebutted that showing, and additio nal discovery 11 w as not

ne ce ssary

f or a dj udi ca tin g th e Mot ion

. N at ion star ap pe al s. 12 DISC US SION 13 { 13} W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t co urt or de r gr an tin g su m m ar y j udgm en t un de r a de nov o 14 st an da rdof r ev ie w. Ca in v

. Ch am pio n W ind owCo

. , 2007 -N MCA -085, ¶ 6, 142 N. M. 15 20 9, 1 64 P.3d 90

. 16 A. Re levant St atute s 17 { 14} Section 40-3-8(A) (5), part of the Com m unityProperty

Ac t of 1973 (the Act), 18 N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 40 -3 -6 to -1 7 ( 1973 , a s a m en de d th ro ugh 1997 ), prov id es in 19 pe rt ine nt p ar

t a s f oll ow s:8

1 A

. “ Se pa rate pr ope rty ” m eans: 2

. . . . 3 (5) property designated as s ep arate property by a w ritten 4 agreem ent betwee n the spou ses, including a d eed or other w ritten 5 ag re em en t c onc er nin g pr ope rty

he ld b y the spo use s a s j oin t te na nts or 6 te na nts in co m

m on in w hic h th e pr ope rty is de sig na te d a s se pa rate 7 p r o p e rt y.

8 B. “ com m unityproperty ” m eans property acquired by

either 9 or

both spouse s duri ng m ar

ri ag e w hic h is not

se pa rate pr ope rty . P ro pe rty 10 acquired by

a husband o r w ife by

an i n s t rum ent in writing whether a s 11 te na nts in co m

m on or as j oin t ten an ts or oth er w ise sha ll be pr es um ed

to 12 be he ld as co m

m uni ty pr ope rty unl es s su chpr ope rty

is se pa rate pr ope rty 13 w ith in the m eanin g of S ubse ct ionA of

thi s se ct ion

. 14 Se ct ion40- 3- 8( A )( 5) , ( B)

. U nde r Se ct ion 40- 3- 8( B) , a ny pr ope rty tha t i s a cquir ed

by 15 the m ar ital co m

m un it y du rin g m arri ag e is pre su m pti ve ly c om m uni ty pr ope rt y . S ec tio n 16 40- 3- 12( A ); En g l is h v. Sanchez , 199 0- N MS C- 064, ¶ 11, 110 N

. M. 343 , 796 P

. 2d 2 36; 17 A rc h, L td. v . Yu , 198 8- N MS C- 101, ¶ 7, 108 N.M. 67 , 7 66 P. 2d 9 11. T hus, the 18 co nto ur s of co m

m uni ty pr ope rty

a re de fi ne d by

the e xc lus ion s art ic ula te d inS ec tio n 19 40- 3- 8( A ), one of

w hic h is pr ope rty tha t is the subj ec t of a sole an d separate pr ope rty 20 ag reem en t si gn edby bot h s po us es . Se e, e . g. , Estate of F letcher v. J

ac ks on , 198 0- 21 NMCA-0 54 , ¶ 46 , 94 N.M. 57 2, 6 13 P.2d 71 4. 22 { 15} Se ct ion40- 3- 13 p ro vid es in pe rt ine nt p ar t a s f oll ow s: 23 A. Exc ep t for purchase- m oney m ortgages and except as 24 oth er

w ise pr ovi de d inthi s subse ct ion , the spo use s m ust j oinin al l9

1 tr an sf

er s, c onve y an ce s or

m ortga ge s or

c ontra ct s to tr an sf

er , c onve y

or 2 m ortgage any i nterest in com m unityrea l property

and separate r eal 3 pr ope rty

ow ne d by

the spo use s. . . in j oin t t en an cy or te na nc y in 4 co m

m on [.] 5 A n y tr a n s f

e r , c o n v e ya n c e , mo rt g a g e . . . o r c o n t r a c tt o t r a n s f

e r , c o n v e y, 6 [o r] m ortga ge . . . a ny int er es t i n th e co m

m uni ty r ea l pr op ert yor

in 7 se pa rate r ea l pr operty ow ne d by

the spo use s a s c ote na nts in j oin t 8 te na nc y

or te na nc y in co m m on a tte m

pte d to be m ade b y

e ith er spo use 9 al one in vio la tio n of the pr ovi sio ns of thi s sec tio n shal l be void an d of 10 no effe ct [.] 1 1 Ex c e p ta s p r o v i d e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n , e i t h e r s p o u s e may t r a n s f

e r , c o n v e y, 12 [or] m ortgage . .

. separate r eal property without the oth er’ s joinder. 13 B. N othin g in this se ct ionsha ll af fe ct the r igh t of

one of the 14 spou ses to transfer, convey , [or] m ortgage . .

. any com m unityrea l 15 pr ope rty

or se pa rate r ea l pr ope rty ow ne d by the spo use s a s c ote na nts in 16 j oint tenancy

or tenancy

in com m on wi t h o u t the j oind er of the other 17 spou se, pursuant to a validly executed and rec orded power of attorney 1 8 as p ro v i d ed i n Se ct i o n 4 7 -1 -7 [. ] 19 Sect io n 4 0- 3- 13 (A), (B). 20 { 16} Section 40-3-13, while a lso part of the Ac t, is derived fr om predecessor statutes 21 tha t ge ne rally requi re d bo th s pous es to j oinin the e xe cu tio n of c er ta in r ea l e sta te 22 tra ns act io ns . See 191 5 N

. M. L aw s, c h. 84, § 1; 19 07 N

. M. L aw s, c h. 37, § 16

. T he 23 law w as prompted b y ape rc ei ve d ne ed

to “ pr ote ct

[ a] w if e’ s in te re st i n c om

m uni ty 24 property

from her husband’s o t h erwise alm ost exclusi ve control.” E ngl ish , 199 0- 25 N MS C- 064, ¶ 14. W if e ur ge s on the ba sis of ca se law pr ec ed en t th at th e sta tut e 26 shou ld be broadly

construed to void m ortgages and convey ances executed by m arrie d10

1 ind ivi dua ls w he re the ir spou se s do not al so s ignthe ins tr um en t. S he ove rs ta te s th e 2 hold ings o f the ca ses. New Mexico courts consist ently have ruled that an attem pted 3 co nve y an ce of

c om m uni ty pr ope rty not j oin ed in by both spou se s is voi d an d anul lity 4 as op po se d t o o nl y

vo id ab le

. Se e, e . g. , Jenkins v. Huntsinger , 194 2- N MS C- 011, ¶ 14, 5 46 N

. M. 168, 125 P. 2d 327. In de ed , in H anna h v

. T

en nant , 197 9- N MS C- 009, ¶ 10, 6 92 N

. M. 444 , 589 P

. 2d 1 035, our S upr em e Co urt he ld tha t a bu y er on a rea l e sta te 7 pur ch as e ag re em en t co uld ra ise , as an af fi rm at ive de fe nse to the se lli ng s pous es ’ sui t 8 to e nf or ce the a gr ee m en t, the f ac t tha t on e of th e se lli ng s pous es ha d no t j oin ed in 9 executing the agreem ent, notwithstan d i n g the fact that both selling spous es later 10 j oined as plain tiffs in the specific perform ance ac tion. In rec ent y ears, however, there 11 ha s be enno f

urthe r ex pa nsi on of

S ec tio n 40 -3 -1 3 be y ond its pla in l an gua ge . I n 19 95, 12 the L eg isl at

ur e ef fe ct ive ly m oot ed H

anna h ’ s hold ing byadding th e second sentence 13 of S ec tio n 40 -3 -1 3( B) , w hic h pe rm its anon -s ign ing spo use t o ratif y a n othe rw ise 14 voi d tr an sf

er , c onve y an ce , or

m ortgag e. See N. M. L aw s 1993 , c h. 165, § 1. In 15 E ngl ish , our

S upr em e Co urt de cl ine d “ to e xpand the appl ic at ionof anul lity or 1 6 w h o l l y- v o i dd o c t r i n e b e yo n di t s p r e s e n t l i mi t s . . . . [ A ] s a l e s c o n t r a c t , v a l i d a tt h e t i me 17 of e xe cu tio n, is va lid

a s to a ft er -a cquired se pa rate pr ope rty , onc e tr an sm ute d by 18 w ri tte n a gr ee m en t be tw ee n th e spou se s. ” 1990 -N MS C- 064, ¶¶ 20, 22. I n H

unt ing ton 19 Na t’ l B ank

v . Spr oul , 1993-NMS C-051, ¶ 31, 116 N. M. 254, 861 P. 2d 93 5, the Court11

1 de cl ine d to r ea d in to S ec tio n 40 -3 -1 3 “ non- ex ist en t” langua ge to re qui re j oin der of 2 both sp ouse s inc re at ion of co mm un ity de bt tha t m igh t l at er

be sa tis fi ed

out of 3 co m m uni ty pr ope rty w he n th e cr ed ito r obt ai ns and r ec or ds a j udgm en t. 4 { 17} Pa st j udi ci al co nstru ct ion of Se ct ion 40- 3- 13 ha s sim ply appl ie d th e sta tut e in 5 ac co rd an ce w ithit s pl ai n langua ge , in pa rt ic ular, tha t “ voi d and o f no ef fe ct ” m eans 6 ex ac tly tha t. T hus, on e le sson of the se de ci sio ns i s th at

it is im portant t o c ar ef

ull y 7 re ad the langua ge of the sta tut e. In pa rt ic ular, Se ct ion 40- 3- 13 nul lif ies t ran sf er s, 8 co nve y an ce s, a nd m ortga ge s si gne d by onl y one spo use onl y

if the sub j ec t pr ope rty 9 is c om m uni ty pr ope rty . I f at

the ti m e of

the tr an sa ct ionthe pr ope rty is se pa rate 10 pr op ert y , Sect io n 4 0- 3- 13 is si m pl y in ap pl ic ab le

. 11 { 18} E

ngl ish illust rates this point . D onald E nglis h entered into a r eal estate contract 12 to sell a parcel of land to the Sancheze s: upon the Sancheze s’ com pletion of a series 13 of ins ta llm en t paym en ts ove r tim e, D ona ld w oul d de liv er ade ed f or the parc el

. A t the 14 tim e the c ontra ct

w as e xe cu te d, how ev er , ti tle to the parc el w as he ld by a co rp or at ion 15 ow ne d by

D onal d and hi s w if

e, E m m a. D ona ld, a s pr es ide nt o f tha t c or por at ion , 16 subs eque ntl y

de ed ed le ga l title to the pr ope rty to an oth er

c or por at iontha t he a nd 17 E m m a ow ne d. So m e y ears la te r, the S an ch ez es de fa ult ed on the ir paym en ts unde r the 18 co ntr ac t. A t tha t po int D ona ld, a s pr es ide nt o f the se co nd cor por at ion , c onve y ed

it to 19 him se lf

a nd the n br ought su it to e nf or ce the c ontra ct

a ga ins t the S an ch ez es . T he12

1 Sancheze s m oved for summ ary j udgm ent, c laim ing th at Sec tion 4 0-3-13 inv alidated 2 D ona ld’ s ti tle

. A t tha t po int , a nd p ri or to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s co nsi de ratio n of the 3 sum m ar y j udgm en t m oti on, D ona ld and E m m a en te re d int o an ag re em en t de sig na tin g 4 th e p arce l as Don al d’s s ep arat e p ro pe rty. E ngl ish , 19 90 -NMSC -0 64 , ¶ 4. 5 { 19} Our S uprem e Court in itially noted th at, because the doctrine of af ter-a cquired 6 pr op ert y , se e, e . g. , H

ay s v . Ki ng , 198 9- N MS C- 078, ¶ 8, 109 N

. M. 202 , 784 P

. 2d 2 1 7 (adopting the doctrine), perm its a pe rs o n t o “ en ter into a valid contract to sell real 8 es ta te to w hic h he ha s no ti tle , pr ovi de d he is ab le to c ar ry thr oughw iththe 9 tr an sa ct iona fte r the f ina l paym en t i s m ad e or te nde re d, ” the f

ac t tha t D ona ld 10 or igi na lly

did not hol d titl e to the parc el pe rs ona lly did not ne ce ssari ly

bar him f ro m 11 en fo rci ng th e rea l es ta te co nt ract

. E n g l ish , 199 0- N MS C- 064, ¶ 7. T he Co urt ne xt 12 de te rm ine d that Se ct ion 40- 3- 13 d id n ot i nva lid at e the or igi na l transa ct ionba se d on 13 E m m a’ s f ai lur e to s ign the re al es ta te c ontra ct , be ca use a t tha t t im e the parc el w as not 14 com m unityproperty

but rather corporate propert y and a corporation can convey 15 corporate real estate “ without the restrictions placed u pon the sale of com m unityrea l 16 property .” E

ngl ish , 199 0- N MS C- 064, ¶ 8. “ A t tha t t im e the c ontra ct did not a tte m pt 17 to convey

an interest in com

m unityrea l property .” Id

. ¶ 20; cf. Dotson v. G rice , 198 2- 18 N MS C- 072, ¶

10, 98 N

. M. 207 , 647 P

. 2d 4 09 ( hol din g th at upo n c ontribu ti on of 19 property

owned by

a m arrie d couple to g eneral p ar t n er s h ip, it no long er has13

1 co m m uni ty pr ope rty status an d Sec tio n 40 -3 -1 3 is not appl ic ab le ; i nst ea d, it s 2 convey ance is governed by partnership law) . T he Court then determ ined that, w hen 3 D o n a l dt o o kt i t l e t o t h e p a r c e l f r o m t h e c o r

p o r a t i o n , i tb e c a me c o mm u n i t y p r o p e rt y. 4 At t h at ju n ct u re , “ t h e co n t ra ct wa s v o i das t o af t er -a cq u i re dco m

m u n i t y p ro p er t y[.]” 5 E ngl ish , 199 0- N MS C- 064, ¶ 13. H ow ever, th e tr an sm uta tio n of

the parc el int o 6 se pa rate pr ope rty

c ha nge d th e re sul t: 7 [A ] sales contract, valid a t the tim e of execution, is valid as to a ft er8 ac qui re d se pa rate pr ope rty , onc e tr an sm ute d by w ritt en a gr ee m en t 9 be tw ee n the spou se s. T he fa ct tha t the pr ope rty w as he ld for a n in te ri m 10 as a n a sse t of

the c om m uni ty m ay ha ve render ed

the c ontra ct

voi d f or 11 pur

pose s of se lli ng co m

m uni ty pr ope rty , but

the int er im

hol din g of

the 12 pr ope rty

by the co m

m uni ty ne ed not voi d the co ntr ac t fo r the pur pose of 13 se ll in g s ep arat e p ro pe rty tha t i s ac qu ire d t hr ou gh tra ns m ut at io n. 14 Id

. ¶ 22

. 15 { 20} Section 47-1-7, incorporated by refe rence in Section 40-3-13(B), provides as 16 fo llo w s: 17 All powers of attorney or other wr iting s containin g authority to convey 18 real e state, a s agent or attorney of the owner of t he sam e, or t o execute, 19 as agent for another, any convey ance o f re al estate, or by which re al 20 esta te m ay

be a ff ec te d inlaw , or

e qui ty , sha ll be a cknow le dge d, 21 ce rt ified , f

ile d and r ec or de d, a s othe r w ri tin gs c onve y ing or a ff ec tin g 2 2 r e a l e s t a t e a r e r e qu i r e d t o b e a c kn o w l e d g e d

. N o s u c h p o w e r o f a t t o rn e y, 23 or

oth er w ri tin g, f

ile d and r ec or de d inthe m an ne r pr es cr ibe d inthi s 24 se ct ion , shall be c onsi de re d r ev oke d by a ny a ct of the party e xe cu tin g 25 the sa m e, unt il th e instru m en t of w ri tin g r ev oki ng the sa m e, dul y 26 ac know le dge d and c er tif ie d to, sha ll be f

ile d f or r ec or d and r ec or de d in 27 the office of

the county

clerk w here said power of attorn ey or other 28 w ri tin g is f

ile d and r ec or de d.14

1 D . Th e SS P A C Wa s N ot V oid as a R es ul t of Wi fe ’s N on -J oin de r or t he D el ay 2 in R ec or di ng It 3 1. The P ropert y Was Separate P ropert y When t he S SP AC Was Execute d 4 { 21} Re ly ing on H

anna h , W if

e co nte nds tha t be ca

use she did not j oin in i t and s he 5 had not g iven Husband a power of attorney , pursu ant to Section 40-3-13(A) and (B ), 6 the Re ve rs e Mor

tga ge w as vo id . Wife ’ s arg um en t a ssu m es , how ev er , tha t the 7 Pr ope rty w as c om

m uni ty pr ope rty a s of Apr il 16, 201 2, w he n th e Re ve rs e Mor tga ge 8 w as e xe cu te d. A s our Su pr em e Co urt ob se rv ed

in E ngl ish , “ T he c ha in o f tit le to this 9 propert y a n d its relation to th e tim e the [R everse Mortgage] wa s executed are 10 im portant f ac tor s inthe r es olu tio n of the que sti ons raise d inthi s a ppe al

. ” 1990

- 11 N MS C- 064, ¶

7. T he Marc h 7, 2012 SS PA C, w hic h W if e ac know le dge s she sig ne d, 12 re but s th e pr es um

pti on tha t the Pr ope rty w as co m m uni ty pr ope rty

on Apr il 16, 201 2. 13 In ste ad , the S SP A C tr an sm ute d the Pr ope rty int o H usband’ s se pa rate pr ope rty a nd h e 14 had authorityto unil atera lly grant a m ortgage. 15 2. R ec or di ng Wa s N ot N ec es sar y f or t he S SP A C To Be Ef fe ct ive A gai nst 16 Wife 17 { 22} A s no te d a

bove , W if

e cannot c la im tha t the Re ve rs e Mor

tga ge wa s vo id a s a 18 result of being recorded before the SSPAC: t he SSP AC wa s recorded f irst in tim e. 1 9 In ste ad , a n dt o n u l l i f y t h e o t h e rw i s e o b v i o u s e f f e c to f t h e S S P A C , s h e f

i nds 20 signi ficance in the fact that H usband m ust have exec ute d

and/or delivered

the Re ve rs e15

1 Mortgage to Nationstar at som e tim e prior to the r ec o rd i n g of the SSP AC. On that 2 basis, s he m aintains her p ositio n that the Reverse Mortgage wa s void for lack of her 3 joi nd er. Thi s ar gu m en t fa il s fo r th ree r eas on s. 4 { 23} Fi rs t, the SSPAC it se lf do es no t requ ire th at it be reco rd ed to be effec ti ve . On 5 the c ontrary , in the S SP AC Hus ba nd and W if e ag re ed “ tha t .

. . [ the P ro pe rty ] is 6 he re byde s i g na te d a s t he sep arat e p ro pe rty of [Hu sb an d].” (Em ph as is ad de d.) 7 “ Hereb y ” m ean s “ by thi s m ean s; esp [eci al ly] : b y m ean s o f

th is act or d oc um en t.” 8 W eb ste r’ s T hird N ewI nt’ l D ic tio nary105 8- 59 ( U nabr idg ed e d. 2002 ). In the c ont ex t 9 o f t h e S S P A C , t h e w o rd m o s tre as o n ab l y co n n o t es Hu s b an d ’s an dWif e’s 10 unde rs ta nding tha t the tr an sm uta tio n of the P ro pe rty

f ro m c om m uni ty pr ope rty to 11 se pa rate pr ope rty

w as e ff ec tiv e on the doc um en t’ s e xe cu tio n a s op pose d t o its 12 reco rd in g. Cf

. Suc han v. Suc han , 682 P. 2 d 607, 613 (Idaho 198 4) (holding that 13 m ar ri ed c oupl e’ s a gr ee m en t tha t se pa rate pr ope rty w as “ he re by

de cl ar ed to be 14 co m m uni ty pr ope rty ” ex pr es se d int en tio n “ tha t the se pa rate pr ope rty de sc ri be d inthe 1 5 ag r e e m e n t w a s t o b e t r a n s m u t e d t o c o m

m u n i t y p r o p e rt y i m

m e d i a t e l y up o n th e 16 ex ecu ti on of t he ag reem en t.” ( em ph as is an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). 17 { 24} Se co nd, S ec tio n 40 -3 -8 (A )( 5) doe s no t r equir e tha t a sol e and se pa rate pr ope rty 18 agreem ent m

ust be recorded to be eff

ective. Indeed, w e can infe r from Section 47-1-7 19 tha t i f the L eg isl at

ur e int en ds tha t a re al e sta te ins tr um en t be e ff

ec tiv e onl y

upo n16

1 recording, it explicitly

will so provide. 2 { 25} Third, and perhaps m ost fundam entally , W ife was a party to and thu s had actual 3 knowledge of the SSPA C. NMS A 1978 , Section 14-9-1 ( 1991 ), gen er al l y requ ires 4 tha t de ed s, m ortga ge s and “ oth er w ri tin gs a ff

ec tin g th e tit le to re al e sta te ” sh al l be 5 reco rd ed in th e of

fic e of th e cl erk of th e co un ty in wh ic h t he real est at e is lo cat ed

. Id

. 6 Bu t the f

ai lur e to re co rd anins tr

um en t a ff ec tin g ti tle to re al e sta te ge ne ra lly doe s no t 7 inv al ida te it , part ic ularl y a s a ga ins t a

party to the ins tr

um en t or oth er p ers on w ith 8 ac tua l kn owl ed ge of

it , a nd i nst ea d on ly

ne ga te s any

c onstru ct ive not ic e of

it

. 9 “ G en er al ly , non -c om

pli an ce w it h th e rec or din g st at ute s do es not

a ff ec t the va lid ity 10 of the i n s trum ent itself, but m akes it ineffec tual as constructive no tice. ” A m et hy st 11 La nd C

o. v . T erhune , 2014 -N MSC- 015, ¶ 11, 326 P.3d 12. “ The gener al rule is that 12 anuna cknow le dge d de ed is bin din g be tw ee n th e pa rt ie s th eret o, the ir he ir s and 13 represe ntatives, and persons having a ctual notice of the instrum ent.” Bake r v. Bake r , 14 1977 -N MS C- 006, ¶

4 n. 1, 90 N

. M. 38, 559 P

. 2d 4 15. 15 3. Sect io n 4 7- 1- 7 Do es Not I nv al id at e the SSPAC 16 { 26} W if

e, how ev er , inv oke s Se ct ion47- 1- 7’ s r ec or din g r equir em en t, be ca use it is 17 incorporated into Section 40-3-13(B). By a fair rea ding of its term s, S ection 47-1-7 18 re qui re s that , to be ef

fe ct ive , a pow er of at tor

ne y or oth er ag re em en t author iz ing one 19 party to c onvey real property owned by another m

ust be recorded. W ife contends that17

1 the statut e ap pli es not onl y to po w er s of

a tto rn ey a nd “ oth er

w ri tin gs c ont ai nin g 2 authorityto convey

rea l estate” but also to “ all .

. . other wr iting s . . . by which re al 3 es ta te m ay

be a ff ec te d inlaw , or

e qui ty [. ] ” Sh e ch ar ac te ri ze s th e SS PA C a s f al lin g 4 w ith in b othof

the se de sc ri pti ons. Ba se d on th is le ga l pr em ise , she ins ist s th at , 5 be c au s e t h e P r o p e rt y

h a dn o tb e e n r e c o r d e da tt h e p o i n tt h a tt h e R e v e r s e Mo rt ga ge 6 w as giv en , the Pr ope rty re m ai ne d as c om m uni ty pr ope rty a nd, pur suant t o S ec tio n 40

- 7 3- 13, the Re ve rs e Mor tga ge w as voi d. W e ar e not pur sua de d. 8 { 27} Fi rs t, w e re

j ec t W if e’ s br oa d c onstru ct ion of Se ct ion47- 1- 7’ s f ir st s en te nc e to 9 ap ply to, a nd r equir e re co rd ing as a pr ed ic at e to ef fe ct ive ne ss of, not onl y

a ll w ri tin gs 10 co nta ini ng a

uth or ity to co nve y re al es ta te but al so oth er w ri tin gs “ by w hic h r ea l e sta te 11 m ay be a ff ec te d in la w, o r equity . ” D oin g so w oul d c onf lic t w iththe ge ne ra lly 12 ac ce pte d r

ule , dis cu sse d a

bove , that

r ea l e sta te ins tr

um en ts are e ff

ec tiv e as to the ir 13 sig na tor ie s an d the ir pr ivi es an d oth er s w ith ac tua l not ic e re ga rd le ss of reco rd ing

. 14 Further, the second sentence of Sec tion 4 7-1-7 indicates that “ other wr iting s” as used 15 in the first sentence cannot be understoo d to refer to m ore than a power of attorney 16 or oth er w ri tin g th at

is ex ec ute d by one pa rty an d can be re voke d. So lim ite d, asol e 17 an d se pa rate pr ope rty a gr eem en t ex ecu te d by

tw o sp ouse s do es not

f it w ith in the 18 sc op e o f “ ot he r writ in g.” 19 { 28} Se co n d , e v en as s u m i n g fo r t h e s ak e o f a rg u m en tt h at Se ct i o n 4 7 -1 -7 ’s18

1 re co rd ing r equir em en t a ppl ie d to m or e than j ust

pow er s of

a tto rn ey , S ec tio n 40 -3

- 2 13( B) inc or

por at es the statut e onl y

a s it appl ie s to pow er s of att or ne y . T he sc ope of 3 Se ct ion 47- 1- 7 is irr el ev an t to the con str uc tio n of Se ct ion40- 3- 13 e xc ep t t o th e ex te nt 4 that Section 40-3-13(B)’ s power of attorney exception to the both -spous e jo inder 5 re qui re m en t m an da te s th at the pow er

of a tto rn ey be r ec or de d. 6 { 29} Third, we rej ect W ife’ s charac terization of the SS PA C as a power of attorney 7 or oth er a gr ee m en t c ont ai nin g auth or ity to co nve y

r ea l est at e tha t w as sub

j ec t t o 8 Se ct ion47- 1- 7. W if

e he rs el f ex ec ute d th e SS PA C and c onve y ed the P ro pe rty

to 9 Husband as his separate property . As a result, there sim ply wa s no need to authorize 10 H usband t o do a nythi ng o n W if e’ s be ha lf w ithr es pe ct

to he r fo rm er

int er es t i n th e 11 Pr ope rty . Co nsi ste nt w iththa t r ea lity , the SS PA C sta te s tha t the pa rt ie s w er e en te ri ng 12 int o it pur suant t o S ec tio n 40 -3 -8 (A )( 5) , not S ec tio n 47 -1 -7

. 13 { 30} Fourth, and as sta t ed ab ove, the SS PA C w as rec orded. T herefor e, even 14 as sum ing S ec tio n 47 -1 -7 a s in corp or at ed int o S ec tio n 40 -3 -1 3( B) w as som eh ow 1 5 ap p l i c ab l e t o t h e t r a n s a c t i o n a ti s s u e h e r e i n , i t s r e qu i r e m e n t s w e r e s a t i s f i e d

. “ There 16 is no req ui rem en t t ha t an in st ru m en t b e rec or de d wi th in a pa rti cu la r pe rio d of t im e.” 17 A m et hy st L and Co

. , 201 4- N MS C- 015, ¶ 12. In ad dit ion , al so as state d a bove , be ca

use 18 W if e ha d a ct ua l no tic e of

a nd i n f ac t j oin ed in the S SP A C, a ny f ai lur e to r ec or d it

did 19 no t i nv al id at e it as t o h er. Se e id. ¶ 11.19

1 { 31} Fi fth, w e re

j ec t the sug gest io n tha t the inc or por at ionof

S ec tio n 47 -1 -7 int o 2 Se ct ion 40- 3- 13( B) som eh ow ch an ge s the m eanin g of Se ct ion 40- 3- 13( A ). Sect ion 3 40-3-13(B) sim

ply articulates an exception to Section 40-3-13(A)’ s requirem ent that 4 both sp ouse s j oinin a m ortga ge , c onve y an ce , or oth er tr an sf er of c om m uni ty 5 property . I t does not alter the f act that one spou se rem ains free to unil atera lly convey 6 pr ope rty

tha t he or

she ho lds as se pa rate pr ope rty . Co m pli an ce w ithS ec tio n 47 -1

- 7 7—w ha te ve r its sc ope —a s inc or por at ed int o Se ct ion 40- 3- 13( B) is ne ce ssary onl y if 8 the tr an sa ct ionoth er

w ise w oul d be inva lid at ed pur suant t o S ec tio n 40 -3 -1 3( A ). T hus, 9 a spou se ’ s auth or iz at ion to con ve y re al pr ope rty is nec es sa ry onl y if the pr ope rty

is 10 he ld b y

the c om m uni ty

. Be ca

use the P ro pe rty

w as H usband’s se pa rate pr ope rty on 11 Apr il 16 , 20 12 , Sect io n 4 0- 3- 13 was wh ol ly inapp li cab le

. 12 { 32} T o c onc lud e, W if e as sum es tha t S ec tio n 40 -3 -1 3( A ) re qui re s bo th s pous es j oin 13 in any m ortgage or convey ance of any pr ope rty ac qui re d dur ing m ar ri ag e unl es s th e 14 exception articulated in Section 40-3-13(B)—one spo use hold s a power of attorney 15 fo r the oth er

spo use —i s a

ppl ic ab le

. T he f

law in W if

e’ s ana ly sis is tha t sh e fa ils to 16 acknowledge that the scope of Sec tion 40-3-13(A), by its term s, genera lly

is lim ited 17 to c om

m uni ty pr ope rty or separate pr ope rty

he ld a s j oin t t en an ts o r te na nts in 18 co m m on. Be ca

use the S SP A C transm

ute d th e Pr ope rty fr om

c om m uni ty pr ope rty to 19 H usband’ s se pa rate p ro pe rty on M ar ch7, 201 2, S ec tio n 40 -3 -1 3 w as sim ply20

1 ina ppl ic ab le to the Apr il 16, 201 2, Re ve rs e Mor tga ge tr an sa ct ion

. 2 E. Th e Oc to be r 22, 201 2 A ssi gn m en t of t he R ev er se M or tg age Wa s N ot V oid 3 as a Result of

Husband ’s and Wif

e’s N on-Joinder 4 { 33} W if

e al so arg ue s, ag ai n on the ba sis of S ec tio n 40 -3 -1 3, a nd b ec au se the 5 Property

had reac quired its comm u n i t y property status as of June 1, 2012 , that 6 MetL ife’ s October 22, 2012 , a ssign m ent of the Reverse Mortgage to Nationstar w as 7 inv a l i d f

o r l a c k o f h e r j o i n d e r . B y W i f e ’ s l o g i c , H u s b a n d ’ s f

a i l u r e t o s i g n th e 8 assignm ent also would operate to void it. While it is unclear whether the district court 9 ru le d onthi s arg um en t i n gr an tin g su m m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of W if e, w e re j ec t i t. 10 { 34} W e note that the June 1, 2012 , r econvey ance of t h e Pr o perty to the m arital 11 com m unitywa s not free and clear , and instead wa s subject to the Reverse Mortgage. 12 “ [T ] he lien acquired by the m ortgage upon the property

. . . [cannot ] be di v ested 13 ei the r by

the le vy ing of

pr oc es s up on the m ortga ge d pr ope rty , or the sa le the re of by 14 the m ortgagor, or under exec ution .” Ch av ez v . M cK nig ht , 18 57 -NMSC -0 01 , ¶11 , 1 15 N.M. 14 7. See A vondal e Shipyard s , I nc. v . T ank Barge E TS 2303 , 754 F

. 2d 1 300, 16 1309 ( 5 Ci r. 1985 ) (I t i s m an if es t tha t, a cc or din g to se ttl ed se curi ty p ri nc ipl es , the th 17 sa le of

pr ope rty e nc um be re d by am ortga ge doe s not itse lf ex tin gui sh the li enof the 18 m ortgage.”)

. 19 { 35} T he poi nt o f Se ct ion40- 3- 13 i s to bar one spo use f ro m c onve y ing or 20 en cu m

be ri ng c om

m uni ty prop erty —or se pa rate pr ope rty

he ld i n j oin t t en an cy

or21

1 te na nc y

in co m m on— w ith out the co nse nt or au tho ri za tio n of the oth er . T hus, S ec tio n 2 40-3-13(A) voids any

such convey ance or m ortgage “ attem pted to be m ade by

[one] 3 spou se a lon e. ” T he sta tut e doe s no t vo id transa ct ion s su cha s m ortga ge a ssi gnm en ts 4 that, w hile they m ay affe ct comm unity property , do not require the consent of either 5 spou se . E ve n a ssu m ing argu en do th at H usband and W if

e oth er w ise m igh t have 6 st an di ng as m or t g a g o rs to ob ject t o a ss ig nm en t o f th e Rev ers e Mo rtg ag e, but c f. 7 F lag sta r B ank , F SB v . L ic ha , 2015-NMC A- 086, ¶ 18, 356 P. 3 d 1 1 0 2 (stating that 8 m ortga gor s la ck ed

standi ng t o c ha lle nge a ssi gnm en t of m ortga ge on bas is of

la ck of 9 co nsi de ratio n) , a brog ated on o ther gro unds by B OKF , N .A . v . G onza lez , N o. A -1

- 10 CA -3 5691 , 201 7 W L 209 9830 , ¶ 3, ___ -N MC A -_

__, ___ P. 3d _

__ ( June 28, 201 7) 11 (n on- pr ec ed en tia l) (s ta tin g that m ortga gor s lac ke d st an din g to c ha lle nge a ssi gnm en t 12 of m ortga ge on b as is o f la ck of c onsi de ratio n) , the t er

m s of the Re ve rs e Mor

tga ge 13 pr ovi de d f

or it s a ssi gnm en t a t M et L if e’ s op tio n. T hus, the O ct ober 22 , 201 2, 14 as sig nm en t w as not

sub j ec t t o in va lid at ionf

or f ai lur e to c om

pl y w ithS ec tio n 40 -3 -1 3. 15 F. Wife’s “P rete nse” The ory 16 { 36} W if

e cl ai m s onappe al tha t “ Me tL if e w as c om

pli ci t i n t ry ing to ci rc um ve nt 17 [S ec tio n] 40- 3- 13” a nd tha t the SS PA C w as “ anunr ec or de d, f ra udul en tly obt ai ne d, 18 co nsi de ratio n- le ss c onve y an ce of re al co m m uni ty pr ope rty [. ] ” W e de cl ine to a ddr es s 19 the se c ont en tio ns f

or tw o r ea sons .22

1 { 37} First, to our und erstanding, the district court did not base its dec ision on such 2 an arg um en t. I t i s tr

ue tha t ne ar

the e nd o f the he ar ing on the sum m ar y j udgm en t 3 m oti on the dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed it s un de rs tandi ng o f the im port of th e “ un der the 4 pr et en se ” phr ase in W if e’ s st at em en t of

und isp ute d f

ac ts: W if e unde rs too d th at

the 5 onlypurpose of the SSPA C w as to facilitate the a cquisiti on of th e lot that adjoined 6 he r an d he r husb an d’ s re sid en ce . Bu t W if e’ s c ouns el the n a dde d th at thi s f ac t w as not 7 necessary

to rule on the m otion . F urther, in its oral explanatio n of its r uling , the court 8 sta te d tha t N at ion star w oul d not be ab le to re but W if e’ s c as e fo r sum

m ar y j udgm en t 9 ev ena ssu m ing it

w as pe rm itt ed

it s requ este d a ddi tio na l di sc ove ry w hic h in cl ude d, 10 am ong ot he r su bj ec ts, the f ac ts s ur ro undi ng H usband’ s and W if e’ s si gni ng o f the 11 SSPA C. For that re ason, the district c ourt denied N ationstar’ s request that the court 12 post pone ru lin g on the m oti on u nti l a ft er it c oul d c ondu ct

dis co ve ry . W e unde rs tand 13 fr om the se state m en ts th at th e dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t r el y on any c onsi de ratio n of 14 poss ibl e m ist ak e or

f ra ud i n r ea ch ing it s de ci sio n, a nd i nst ea d r ule d so lely

on the 15 ba sis of

W if e’ s le ga l arg um en ts r eg ar din g th e m eanin g of Se ct ion s 40 -3 -1 3 and 4 7- 1- 16 7. 17 { 38} Se co nd, w hil e as age ne ra l m at te r thi s Co urt w ill af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt i f its 18 de ci s i on is rig ht foran y reas on , eve n o ne th atit di d n ot co ns id er, see Hawkins v. 19 McD onal d’s , 20 1 4 -N M CA -048, ¶ 23, 323 P.3d 932 , w e w ill not con sider bare18 “ [P] resentation of what is dece ptive or hyp o cr itical” is only one of several 2 19 definition s of “ pretense.” W eb ste r’ s T hird I nt’ l D ic tio nary179 7 ( U nabr idg ed e d. 20 2002 ). 23 1 as se rti on s th at are no t dev el op ed an d s up po rte d b y leg al au th or it y

an d a na lysis

. See, 2 e. g. , Cu rr

y v. Gre at Nw. In s. Co ., 201 4- N MC A -0 31, ¶2 8, 320 P. 3d 482 (d ec lin ing to 3 ad dr es s ar gum en t w he re appe lle e pr ovi de d no auth or ity ); Sta te e x re l. O ffi ce of Sta te 4 E ng’ r v . L ew is , 200 7- N MC A -0 08, ¶ 74, 141 N

. M. 1, 150 P

. 3d 3 75 (d ecl ini ng t o 5 ad dr es s th e iss ue w he re appe llant pro vid ed no s uppo rt ing “ ev ide nc e, dis cu ssi on, or 6 authority ”); Lo s Al a mo s Na t ’l Ba n k v . Ma r t i n ezS

u r ve yi n g S ervs., LLC, 200 6-NMCA7 081, ¶ 25, 140 N. M. 41, 139 P. 3d 201 (declining to address argum ent wher e appellee 8 pr ov id edno au th or it y , ov er ru le d o n o th er gr ou nd s b y Mil le r v . THI o

f N.M. , No. A9 1- CA -2 9459 , 200 9 W L 657 5071 , ___ -N MC A -_ __, ¶ 1, ___ P

. 3d _

__ (A ug. 28, 10 2009 ) (non-prece dential). W ife never developed her “ pretense” suggestion below. In 11 he r an sw er to N at ion star’ s com pla int , W if

e as se rt ed w ith out

e la bor at iona ff

irm at ive 12 defenses of “ lack and failure of consideration,” “ m istake,” and “ fraudulent conduct 13 an d ba d f

ai th” on the part

of N at ion star. H ow ev er, othe r than pe rh ap s th e poss ibl e 2 14 co nnot at ionim

pli ci t i n th e w or d “pr et en se , ” she did not dis cu ss or ev ena sse rt a ny of 15 these or other claim s of im proper conduct on the part of H usband m uch less MetLife 16 as aba sis f

or voi din g th e SS PA C and thus sum m ar y j udgm en t. W ife al so h as not 17 developed th ose theories on appeal. In particular, she does not provid e any legal17 Si m ilarl y , be ca use W if e ha s no t r ai se d any

c la im s of br ea chof f idu ci ar y duty 3 18 or c onstru ct ive f

ra ud, it a lso is unne ce ssary

to co nsi de r the dis cu ssi on r egar din g 19 ad equa cy

of c onsi de ratio n and ind ep en de nt le ga l advic e fo und in o ur r ec en t op ini on 20 in G abri el e v. G abri el e, ___ -N MC A -_ __, ___ P. 3d ___ (N o. A -1 -C A -3 4523 , Jan. 31, 21 2018 )

. 24 1 au tho ri ty

or oth er w ise a ddr es s an y fraud- or m ist ak e- ba se d th eo ry

f or voi din g th e 2 SSPA C. Instead, she r elies solely on her l eg al argum ents about th e scope and legal 3 co nse que nc es of

S ec tio n 40 -3 -1 3 and S ec tio n 47 -1 -7

. 4 { 39} U nde r the se c ir cu m st an ces, w e de cl ine to ad dr es s, a s apos sib le ba sis f or 5 affir m ing, the unsup ported pos sibili ty of w rongful cond uct on the part of Na tions tar 6 or it s pr ed ec es sor -i n- int er es t, Me tL if e, pa r t i cu larl y w he re ne ith er

W if e’ s a ff idavit nor 7 ev en h er

s t at emen to f u n d i s p u t ed m at er i al fa ct s i m p l i c a t e s M et Li fe i n Hu s b an d ’s 8 “ pr et en se . ” T he re a re sim ply too m an y

unansw ere d qu es tio ns b as ed on the c ur

re nt 3 9 sta te of the r ec or d. 10 CON CLU SION 11 { 40} O n th e ba s i s o f t h e s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t r e c o r d b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt , in 12 part icular, the S SP A C e xe cu te d by H usband and W if

e, N at ion star ha d r eb utt ed the 13 presum

ption that the Property wa s com m unity property on April 16, 2 0 1 2 , wh en 14 H usband ex ec ute d the Re ve rs e Mor tga ge . A s ar es ult , the Re ve rs e Mor tga ge w as not 1 5 voi d pu rs u a n t t o S e c t i o n 4 0

- 3

- 1 3

. S e c t i o n 4 0

- 3

- 1 3 a l s o d i d n o t o p e r a t e t o v o i dthe 16 Oc tober 22, 2012, assignm ent of the Rever se Mortgage. For these re asons, the district25

1 co urt e rr ed in granti ng sum m ar y j udgm en t in f

av or of W if e. W e the re fo re r ev er se the 2 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t an d di sm iss al of N at ion star’ s c om

pla int , 3 an d r em an d f

or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on. 4 { 41} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 6 HE N R Y M . BO HN HO F F , Ju dg e

7 WE CO NCUR:

8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 9 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , Ju dg e

10

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 11 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e