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: Apr il 26, 201 6 4 N O. 33, 394 5 PNC MORTGAGE , a di vi si on of PNC BANK 6 National A ssociation, SU CC ESSO R B Y 7 MER GER

TO N ATION AL CITYMOR TGA GE, 8 a d ivi sio n of

N A TI ON A L C IT Y BA N K f /k /a 9 NATIO NAL CITY B ANK OF INDI ANA, 10 Plaintiff-Appellee, 11 v. 12 DA NARO MER O and E UGE NE ROM ERO , 13 D ef

en da nts -Appe llants

. 14 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF SA NTAFE CO UN TY 15 Sa ra h M . S in gle to n, D ist ri ctJu dg e 16 Bro wns te in Hy at t Fa rb er Sc hr eck , LLP 17 E ri c R. Burr is 18 N ur y H

. Y oo 19 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 20 for Appellee 21 Law O ffice s of Brian A . T hom as, P .C. 22 Brian A . T hom as 23 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 24 fo r Appe llants17 As will be di sc us se d i n t h i s Op in io n, inf ra ¶¶ 3, 7, 8, there a lso exist ed an 1 18 en t i ty n am e d “ N at i on a l C i ty

M or t gage Co.” Although PN C Mortgage ar gues that there 19 is a dif fe re nc e be tw ee n N at ion al Ci ty Mo rt ga ge , adiv isi on, a nd N at ion al Ci ty 20 Mor tga ge , asub sid iary , ne ith er party e xpl ai ns the r el ev an ce , m at er ia lity , or 21 co nse que nc es of

the dis tin ct ion

. 1 OPIN ION 2 SU TIN, Judge. 3 { 1} D ef

en da nts -Appe llants D an a an d Eug en e Rom er o (c oll ec tiv el y , the Ro m er os) 4 ap pe al fro m

an award of s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee PNC 5 Mor tga ge , w hic h or de rs tha t the fo re cl osur e ac tio n a ga ins t the Ro m er os p ro ce ed

. T he 6 Ro m ero s ar gu e o n app eal th atth ere a re g en ui ne is su es of m at eri al fact reg ard in g P NC 7 Mor tga ge ’ s standi ng to en fo rc e the Ro m er os’ pr om iss or y not e an d to fo re cl ose t he 8 m ortga ge tha t se cure d th e not e. Be ca use w e ag re e tha t the re a re out standi ng g enuin e 9 i s s u e s o f

ma t e r i a l f

a c tr e g a r d i n g P N C M o rt g a g e ’s r i g h tt o e n f o r c e t h e n o t e a tt h e t i me 10 it fi le d it s c om

pla int a nd b ec au se P N C M ortga ge f ai le d to sho w tha t i t t im el y 11 p o s s es s ed the Rom ero note as a bearer instrum ent, w e re verse the district court ’s 12 ru li ng an d re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . 13 BACKGRO UND 14 Th e N ot e, t he M or tg age , an d th e D ist ri ctC ou rtP ro ce ed in gs 15 { 2} In May

2006 , the R om eros signed a p ro m issory note (the Rom ero note) 16 evidencing a debt in the principal sum of $240,000 to Na tional City Mortgage, a

12

1 d i v i s i o n o f

Na t i o n a l C i t y B a n ko f

I n d i a n a . Th e R o me r o n o t e wa s s e c u r e db y a 2 m ortga ge on the Ro m er os’ hom e (the Ro m er o m or tga ge ). T he Ro m er os m ad e the 3 m ortga ge paym en ts up to an d inc lud ing Ja nuary 1, 201 0, but the re af te r the y w en t i nto 4 de fa ult

. 5 { 3} In August 201 0, Pla intiff PN C Mortgage, a division o f PN C Bank, Na tional 6 A s s o c i a t i o n , s u c c e s s o r b y m e r g e r t o N a t i o n a l C i t y M o rt g a g e ( N C M ) , a d i v i sio n of 7 N at ion al Ci ty

Bank f /k/ a N at ional Ci ty Bank o f In diana( N CB I) , f ile d am ortga ge 8 fo re cl osur e co m

pla int a ga ins t the Ro m er os. P N C M ortga ge a tta ch ed to the c om

pla int 9 a copy of the u n i n d o rs ed Rom ero note (here inafter, the unind orsed note) that 10 ide nti fi ed

N CM , adiv isi on o f N CB I, a s th e le nde r. P N C M ortga ge al so a tta ch ed a 11 co py of th e Ro m ero m or tg ag e to t h e co m pl ai nt . The co m

pl ai nt all eg edth atPNC 12 Mortgage wa s “ the hold er of the [ m ] ortgage . .

. pursuant to a nam e change/m erger 13 w ithc ur

re nt h old er

of r ec or d. ” N eith er the c om pla int nor the a tta ch ed

doc um en ts 14 al le ge d or

sho w ed a ny de ta ils of an y suc ce sso r sta tus or m er ge r. In Se pte m be r 2010 , 15 the Ro m er os f

ile d an answ er

to the c omplain t w he re in the y a lle ge d th e af

fi rm at ive 16 defense of lac k of standin g to sue. 17 { 4} InN ove m

be r 2012 , P N C M ortga ge f ile d am oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t 18 contendin g that it w as entitled to judgm ent because it w as the holder of and entitled 19 to enf or ce the not e and m ortga ge as sta te d in an af fi da vit of Co urtne y M. E ly ( the E ly3

1 af fi da vit ). A s “ a dul y

auth or iz ed

a ge nt o f

. . . P la int if

f[ , ] ” E ly state d th at

“ PN C [ Bank] 2 is the legal hold er” of the Rom ero note, “ a true and correc t copy of w hich is attached 3 to the c om

pla int ” an d th e not e w as se cure d by the m ortga ge , “ a tr

ue a nd cor

re ct c opy 4 of which is attached to the [ c]o m p laint[.] ” In its m otion , P NC Mortgage stated that 5 its c ouns el w as in poss es sio n of the or igi na l note an d that it w as the suc ce sso r to the 6 originator of the not e and m ortgage. 7 { 5} In response to the m otion fo r s u mm ary j udgm ent, the Rom eros asserted that 8 m aterial issues of fa ct existed precluding s umm ar y j udgm ent. T he Rom eros denied 9 tha t P N C M ortga ge w as the hol de r of the not e and at ta ck ed the E ly a ff idavit be ca use 10 it la ck ed

astate m en t tha t i t w as ba se d on pe rs ona l know le dge , it sta te d c onc lus ion s, 11 and it wa s inadm issib le hearsay . I n additio n, the Rom eros stated that the note that was 12 attached to the com

plaint lacked i ndorsem ents and wa s “ order paper, ” that there w as 13 no do cu m en ta ti on of an as si gn m en t of th e m or tg ag e, an d t ha t n ot hi ng su pp or te d P NC 14 Mortgage’ s claim

to be the successor to the lender through m erger, an d therefor e, 15 PN C Mortgage lacked standing to foreclose. T he Ro m er o s also foreshadowed that 16 PN C M ortga ge m ay of fer a “ ne w a nd d if

fe re nt” ve rs ionof

the not e la te r in the 17 pr oc ee din gs an d w ar

ne d tha t al low ing a se co nd ve rs ion w oul d be unf ai r an d c re at e 18 undu e prej udice.4

1 { 6} A tta ch ed

to the ir r es pons e to PN C M ortga ge ’ s m oti on w as a n a ff idavit by 2 E uge ne Ro m er o a ddr es sin g th e Rom er os’ a tte m pts to m odi fy

the ir loan and r eg ar din g 3 an inquir

y int o th e ow ne r of

the ir pr om iss or

y not e. A tta ch ed

to the a ff

idavit w as a 4 le tte r the Ro m er os re ce ive d fr om PN C Mor tga ge to the ir

qua lif ie d w ri tte n r eque st t o 5 PN C M ortga ge und er

the Re al E sta te Se ttl em en t Pr oc ed ur es A ct , 12 U. S. C. §§ 2 601 6 to 2 617 (2 012)

. P N C M ortga ge ’ s le tte r da te d S ep te m be r 27, 2012 ( the Q W R r es pons e 7 le tte r) , sta te d in re le va nt pa rt tha t “ [y ] our loan is in a pool kno w n a s G SA A 200 6- 14 8 an d th e T ru ste e is Bank o f A m er ic a . . . ; ho w ev er , P N C M ortga ge is the se rv ic er of 9 y our lo an an d y ou s houl d c ont inu e to c ont ac t us f or a ny c onc er ns r eg ar din g y our 10 m ortga ge . ” T he Q W R r es pons e le tte r al so s ta te d th at “ PN C M ortgage affir

m s th e 11 va lid ity of the de bt an d re qui re s re pa ym en t pe r the [n ] ote a nd the [ m ] ortga ge unt il al l 12 debt is paid in full. . . . PNC Mortgage will con tinue to service the above ref erence d 13 loan, and any

collection and foreclos u re ef fo rts will continue.” I n additio n, Mr

. 1 4 Ro m er o at t ac h ed a l et t er d at ed M ay 1 7 , 20 1 2 , fro m PN C M o rt g ag e t h at s t at ed “ [w ]e 15 se rv ic e y our

loan onbe ha lf

of a n in ve sto r or

gr oup of inv es tor s th at

ha s no t gi ve n us 16 the c ontra ct

ua l auth ority

to m odi fy

y our loan un de r the H om e A ff or dable 17 Mo di fic at io n P ro gr am .” 18 { 7} Inr es pons e to the Ro m er os’ c ont en tio n th at it la ck ed standi ng t o e nf

or ce the 19 not e an d to f

or ec los e, P N C M ortga ge sub m itt ed ev ide nc e in the fo rm of c er tif ic at ion s5

1 fr om th e se cr et ar

y of N at ion al Ci ty

Bank/ PN C B an k, N at ion al A sso ci at ion , a nd 2 m er ge r doc um en ta tio n f ro m the O ff ic e of the Co m ptro ll er of the Curr en cy . T he 3 docum ents sho we d that, “ [e] ffec tive July 22, 2006, [N CBI] wa s acquired by [N CB] 4 and National City

Mortgage Co. becam e a who lly owned subsid iary

of [N CB] .” In 5 2008 , “N at ion al Ci ty Mor tga ge Co m

pa ny m er ge d int o [ N CB ] a nd b ec am e a div isi on 6 of [ NCB].” The c er

tif ic at e al so n ote d th at

N CB , aw hol ly

ow ne d su

bsi diary of 7 “Nati on al Cit y

Co rp or at io n,” be cam e a who ll y own edsu bs id ia ry in 20 08 of Th e PNC 8 Fi na nc ia l S er

vic es G ro up, I nc . , w he n N at ion al C ity Co rp or at ionm er ge d w itha nd i nto 9 T he P N C F inanc ia l S erv ic es G ro up, I nc . E ff ec tiv e in 2 009, N CB w as m er ge d in to 10 PN C Bank, N at ion al A sso ci at ion , w hic h w as a w hol ly ow ne d subs idi ary of PNC 11 Bancorp, Inc. , a

wholly owned subsid iary

of T he PN C Financial Services G roup, Inc. 12 T he r es ult of

thi s c om pli ca te d sh ow ing , non e of w hic h is c ont es te d by

the Ro m er os, 13 is that, through succession by m erger, NCB wa s m erged into PNC Bank in Novem ber 14 2009

. 15 { 8} Also am ong PN C Mortgage’ s responsiv e sum m ary j udgm ent docum ents was 16 a co py

of the Ro m er o no te

. Bu t un lik e the co py of the not e tha t w as a tta ch ed to the 17 co m pla int , thi s co py of the not e co nta ine d tw o un da te d in dor se m en ts ( he re ina ft er , the 18 indo rsed note). One indorsem ent unam bigu ouslystated “ Pay to the Or der o f N ational 19 City Mortgage Co[. ,] a Subsidiary of N ational City Bank of Indiana” and w as signed6

1 by adoc um en t c ontro l sp ec ia lis t onbe ha lf of “N at ion al Ci ty

Mo rt ga ge [, ] adiv isi on 2 of N at ion al Ci ty

Bank of I ndi an a[

. ] ” T he oth er ind or se m en t, w hic h a

ppe ar s be lowthe 3 fo re goi ng i ndor se m en t, state d “ Pay to the O rd er of [

____ ____ ] ” an d w as sig ne d by 4 the a fo re m en tio ne d do cu m en t c o n tr o l s pe ci al ist on b eh al f of

“N at ion al Ci ty

Mo rt ga ge 5 Co[. ,] a Subsidiary

of N ational City Bank of Ind iana.” Ne ither i ndorsem ent was date d 6 an d ne ith er PN C Mor

tga ge nor the Ro m er os of fe re d spe ci fi c ev ide nc e re ga rd ing the 7 tim ing of

the ind or se m en ts. 8 { 9} Based on its reading of the m erger docum entation it s ubm itted to su pport 9 summ ary

j udgm ent, P NC Mortgage argued that it establish ed a prim a fa cie ca se that 10 it w as in the sa m e posi tio n as the or igi na l l en de r, N CM , a nd i t w as in poss es sio n of 11 the ori gi na l no te a nd w as the hol de r of the not e. P N C M ortga ge a lso a rg ue d th at it 12 wa s entitled to enforce the note, as we ll as the m ortgage, bec ause it is “ we ll-settled 13 tha t the m ortga ge ‘ fo llo w s’ the not e” a s in dic at ed in NMSA 19 78 , S ec tio n 55 -9

- 14 203(g) (2005 ) of N ewMexico’ s Uniform Com m ercia l Code (U CC). 15 { 10} T h e d i s t r i c tc o u rts p e c i f i c a l l y d e t e rmi n e dt h a tP N C M o rt g a g e ma d e ap r i ma 16 fa ci e show ing th at it w as the hol de r of the not e an d e nti tle d to e nf or ce it ba se d on 17 determ ination s that PNC Mortgage’ s predecessor in interest m ade the note a bear er 18 in st ru m en t an d t ha t PNC Mo rtg ag e was in po ss es si on of t he ori gi na l n ot e. See NMS A 1 9 1978 , § 5 5

- 1

- 2 0 1 ( b ) ( 2 1 ) ( A ) ( 2 0 0 5 ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t “ ‘ h o l d e r ’ m e a n s . . . t h e p e r son in7

1 poss ession o f a negotiabl e in strum ent that is pay able either to bear er or to an 2 identified person th at is the person in po ssessio n”). Thus, the district court agreed that 3 PN C M ortga ge ha d esta bli she d stan din g to f

or ec los e an d gr an te d su m m ar y j udgm en t 4 in favor of PN C Mortgage. 5 { 11} Af

ter the district c ourt gr anted summ ary j udgm ent, and after the R om eros filed 6 the ir doc ke tin g st at em en t w iththi s C ourt, the Ro m er os m ove d fo r re lie f unde r Ru le 7 1 -0 6 0 (B ) N M RA . I n t h e i r mo t i o n , t h e R o m er o s ar g u ed t h at o u r S up re m e C o u rt ’s 8 de ci sio n in B ank

of Ne w Yo rk

v . R om er o , 201 4-NMS C-007, 32 0 P. 3d 1, which w as 9 decided after

the district court granted summ ary j udgm ent in favor of PN C Mortgage, 10 he ld tha t i n or de r to show standi ng, a pla int if f is re qui re d “ to de m onstrate

. . . tha t i t 11 had standin g to bring a fore closure action at the tim e it filed suit.” Id

. ¶ 17. T he 12 Ro m er o s also argued that und er R om er o an d D e ut sc he B an k N

at i on al T ru st Co. v

. 13 Be ne fi ci al New Me xi co Inc

. (

De utsche Bank I

) , 2 0 1 4

- N M C A

- 0 9 0 , 3 3 5 P

. 3 d2 1 7, 14 aff irm ed in part sub nom

. D eu tsc he B ank Na tio nal T rus t C o. v . J ohns ton ( D eu tsc he 15 Bank II

), 201 6- N MS C- 013, ___ P. 3d _ __, P N C M ortga ge w as r e q u i r e d t o s h o w t i m el y 16 ow ne rs hip of

both th e no te a nd the m ortga ge . A cc or din g to the Ro m er os, be ca use 1 7 P N C M o rt g a g e h a d n o t s h o w n t h a t i t h e l d o r p o s s e s s e d t h e o r i g i n a l n o t e a tt h e t i me 18 it fi le d th e co m

pla int a nd, the re fo re , la ck ed

standi ng, sum

m ar y j udgm en t and the 19 or de r of

f or ec los ur e sa le sho uld

ha ve be ende em ed

voi d un de r Ru le 1- 060( B) (4 ). T he8

1 Ro m er os a lso a rg ue d th at the E ly a ff idavit of fe re d onbe ha lf

of P N C M ortga ge dur ing 2 the sum

m ar y j udgm en t pr oc eedi ng s w as ina dm iss ibl e he ar sa y a nd i na ppr opr ia te ly 3 sta te d le ga l c onc lusion s. F ina lly , the Ro m er os arg ue d th at the e xis te nc e of

the 4 securi tiz ed

tr ust , w ith out

spe ci fi c ev ide nc e of

P N C M ortga ge ’ s a cquis iti on o f the 5 Ro m er o no te , c re at ed

age nui ne iss ue of

m at er ia l f

ac t. 6 { 12} Inr es pons e to the Ro m er os’ m oti on, P N C M ortg a g e arg ue d th at it w as dif fe re nt 7 fr om the pla int if

fs in R om er o be ca

use P N C M ortga ge wa s bo th the suc ce sso r by 8 m er ge r to the or igi na l pay ee a nd, a s sh ow n by the E ly a ff idavit , the hol de r of

the 9 Ro m er o no te

. P N C M ortg ag e as se rt ed tha t R om er o and its progenywe re 10 distin guish able because, unlik e the R om er o pla int if fs , P N C Mortga ge ha d ar igh t t o 11 enforce the note by

virtue of its m erger with N CBI. PN C Mortgage further argued 12 tha t the E ly

a ff idavit pr ope rl y asse rt ed Ms

. E ly ’ s op ini ons an d di d no t c onst itu te 13 he ar sa y . P N C M or tg ag e al so a sse rt ed tha t owne rs hip of

the not e w as ir

re le va nt t o 14 standi ng. 15 A rg um en ts on A pp ea l 16 { 13} On appeal, the Rom eros contend that PNC Mortgage f ailed to prove it had 17 standi ng and tha t, “ at a m ini m um , a tr ia l on the m er its r athe r than su m m ar y j udgm en t” 18 is p ro pe r. T he Ro m er os fi rs t ar gue tha t P N C M ortga ge did not ha ve standi ng t o br ing 19 thi s fo re cl osur e ac tio n be ca use the uni ndor se d not e atta ch ed to the c om pla int9

1 indicated that it was pay able to N CM, a divis ion of N CBI, and PN C Mortgage fa iled 2 to p ro vid e an y

e vid en ce c onf

irm ing it s r igh t t o e nf

or ce the Ro m er o no te a s a 3 successor in interest. T he Rom eros do not d isput e that PN C Mortgage established that 4 it is the c or

por at e suc ce sso r to N CM , but the Ro m er os dispute tha t this f ac t a lon e 5 es ta bli she s aspe ci fi c int er es t i n the not e or the m ortga ge r equir ed

to es ta bli sh 6 standi ng. T he Ro m er os s pe ci fi ca lly hig hli ght the f ac t tha t P N C Mo rtg ag e fa ile d to 7 pr oduc e an y

doc um en ta tio n th at

a cc ount ed

f or e ac h ti m e th e note and m ortga ge 8 changed hands , including du ring each bank m erger. 9 { 14} T he Ro m er os a lso arg ue tha t the tw o di ff er en t c opi es of

the Ro m er o no te 10 ind ic at e tha t PN C Mortga ge la ck ed standi ng wh en it fi le d th e fo re cl osur e co m pla int 11 be ca use the not e tha t c am e to li gh t durin g th e sum m ar y j udgm en t pr oc ee din gs, the 12 ind or se d no te , doe s no t i ndi ca te tha t the ad de d indor se m en ts w er e ex ec ute d pr ior to 13 the f ili ng o f the co m

pla int or tha t P N C M ortga ge ha d po sse ssi on o f the ind or se d no te 14 an d w as the hol de r at

the ti m e it fi le d it s c om

pla int

. T hus, a cc or din g to the Ro m er os, 15 pr ovi din g th e ind or se d no te dur ing the c our se of li tig at ionw as ina de qua te to show 16 poss es sio n of

the ind or se d no te a t the ti m e the f or ec los ur e sui t w as f

ile d. 17 { 15} In ad di ti on , th e Ro m ero s p oi nt ou t t ha t, af te r th e fi li ng of t he co m

pl ai nt , PNC 18 Mor tga ge ’ s Q W R r es ponse le tt er sta te d th e loan w as ow ne d by ase curi tiz ed

tr ust17 A loan se rv ic er is ge ne ra lly

“ re spon sib le f

or pr oc es sin g pa y m en ts and 2 18 su pe r v i si ng an y

res ul ti ng for ecl os ur e o r wor ko ut .” Ri ch ard H. Mart in , P rov ing 19 Sta ndi ng t o F

ore cl ose a F

lor ida M ort gage , 85 Fla. B. J. 31 (D ec. 2 0 1 1 ). How ever, 20 neither party

provided a pooling and servicing agreem ent or any other docum entary 21 ev ide nc e tha t m igh t desc ri be the ri ght s and o bli ga tio ns o f PN C M ortga ge ve rs us the 22 rig ht s an d o bl ig at io ns of t he sec ur it iz edtru st

. 10 1 entitled GS AA 2006 -14 and that PNC Mortgage wa s m erely the servicer

of the note. 2 2 T he Ro m er os m en tio n that the ef fe ct ive da te of a tr

ust usua lly

appe ar s inthe na m e of 3 the trust, in this case 2006, and that the trust here “ would m ost likely have acce pted 4 as se ts

. . . (u su al ly [thi rty to n in et y ] da y s) aft er t he effe ct iv e d at e o f th e trus t.” 5 In fe rr ing tha t the tr

ust w oul d have cl ose d by e ar ly 200 7 and tha t the m er ge r did not 6 close until after 2007, the Rom eros con clude that PN C Mortgage could not h ave been 7 suc ce sso r to the or igi na l l en de r by m er ge r. Fr om the se ci rc um stanc es , the Ro m er os 8 argu e t h at “ [t] he strong in fere nce here is that the [n] ote and the [m ] ortgage we re 9 tr an sf er re d to the G SA A 200 6- 14 tru st d ur ing the 2006 w ind ow , an d thene ith er the 10 [n ] ote or

the [ m ] ortga ge ( or

both) w as tr an sf

er re d ba ck to [ PN C M ortga ge ] , in its r ole 11 as se rv ic er fo r the G SA A 2006 -1 4 tr ust at som e poi nt the re af

te r. ” T hus, a cc or din g to 12 the Ro m er os, “ [P N C M ortga ge ] ha s bee n unab le to m ak e a co nvi nc ing , log ic al c as e 13 as to w he n and if the ri ght s unde r the [n ] ote w er e ne got ia te d ( in U CC parl an ce ) an d 14 the rig hts un der the [m ] ortgage we re transferre d to the GSA A 2006-14 trust as 15 pr inc ipa l ( w ithse rv ic ing r igh ts r et ai ne d by [ PN C M ortga ge ] ), ” the re by r es ult ing in 16 a fa ilure of PN C Mor

tga ge ’ s cl ai m

of standi ng. T he re fo re , a cc or din g to the Ro m er os,11

1 m aterial issues of fa ct exist as to whether PN C Mortgage owned, or w as the holder 2 or in poss es sio n of

, e ith er t he no te or

m ortga ge , w he n P N C M ortga ge f ile d th e 3 fo re cl osur e co m

pla int

. 4 { 16} In ad di ti on to th e de fic ie nc ie s rega rd in g t he no te , th e Ro m ero s ar gu e th atPNC 5 Mortgage failed to show ownership of the Rom ero m ortgage by virtue of an 6 as sig nm en t of

m ortga ge , a nd thus, P N C M ortga ge f ai le d to pr ove standi ng. 7 DISC US SION 8 Stand ard of R eview 9 { 17} “ The [ summ ary j udgm ent] m ovant need only m ake a prim a fa cie showing that 10 he is en tit le d to sum

m ar y j udgm en t. Upon the m ovant m ak ing apr im a fa ci e show ing , 11 the bur den sh if

ts t o th e pa rty

opp osi ng the m oti on t o de m onstrate the e xis te nc e of 12 spe ci fi c ev ide nti ar

y f ac ts whic h w oul d r equir e tr ia l onthe m er its. On r ev ie w , [ the 13 appellate courts] consider the whole rec ord for evidence that pu t s a m aterial f act at 14 iss ue . I f the f

ac ts are not

in dis put e, a nd o nly

the ir le ga l e ff ec ts r em ai n to be 15 determ ined, summ ary j udgm ent is p roper. ” R oth v . T hom pson , 199 2- N MS C- 011, 16 ¶ 17, 113 N

. M. 331 , 825 P

. 2d 1 241 (c ita tio ns o m itt ed ). “ A n ap pe al fr om the gr an t of 17 a m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t p res en ts a qu es ti on of l aw an d i s re vi ewedde no vo .” 18 Montgomery v. Lomos A ltos, Inc. , 20 07 -NMSC -0 02, ¶ 16, 141 N

. M. 21, 150 P

. 3d 1 9 97 1

. T h e ap p e l l a t e c o u rt s r e v i e w t h e f a c t s “ i n t h e l i g h tm o s tf

a v o r ab l e t o t h e p a rty12

1 oppo sing s umm ary

j udgm ent, drawing all inference s in favor of that party .” Gormle y 2 v. Co ca -C

ola E nte rs. , 2005-NMS C-003, ¶ 8, 1 37 N. M. 192 , 109 P. 3d 28 0 (internal 3 quot ation m arks and citation om itted). 4 Stand ing 5 { 18} A t the tim e tha t this ca se w as br ie fe d and ar gue d bef or e thi s C ourt, standi ng i n 6 fo re cl osur e ca se s ha d be ena rt ic ula te d a s aj ur isd ic tio na l pr er equis ite tha t “ m ay not 7 be w ai ve d and m ay

be ra ise d at an y sta ge of the pr oc ee din gs, ev ensua spo nte by

the 8 appellate court.” R om er o , 2014 -N MS C- 007, ¶ 15 (i nte rn al quot at ion m ark s and 9 ci ta tio n om itt ed ); F

lag st arB ank , F SB v . L ic ha , 201 5- N MC A -0 86, ¶ 13, 356 P

. 3d 10 1102

. H ow ev er , our

S upr em e Co urt r ec en tly

iss ue d it s op ini on i n De utsche B ank II , 11 2016 -N MSC- 013, ¶ 9, wher ein the Court took the oppo rtunity “ to cl ar i fy that 12 standin g is not a j urisdictio nal pr er eq u i s i t e in m ortgage foreclosure c ases in New 13 Me xic o[

. ] ” A cc or din g to our S upr em e Co urt, onl y

pr ude nti al r ule s of standi ng a

ppl y 14 in su ch cas es . Id

. ¶¶ 10 , 1 2. The Co ur t reco gn iz ed th atun de r th e p ru de nt ia l ru le s, a 15 lit igant i s ge ne ra lly

r equir ed to de m onstrate “ injury in fa ct , c au sa tio n, a nd 16 red res sa bi li ty to i nv ok e th e [d is tri ct ] co ur t’s au th or it y to de ci de th e m eri ts of a cas e.” 17 Id

. ¶ 13 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). To effe ctively show a direc t 18 an d c onc re te inj ur

y , the Co urt sta te d tha t a pa rty se ek ing to en fo rc e a pr om iss or y not e 19 m us t e s t a b l i s h t h a t i t h as th e ri gh t t o e nf or ce t he no te un de r th e UCC. Id

. ¶ 14; see13

1 als o N MS A 197 8, § 55 -3 -3 01 ( 1992 ). F ina lly , t he Co urt s ta te d th at “ [a ] rg um en ts 2 based on a lack of pru d ential standin g are analogo us to asserting that a litigant has 3 fa ile d to state ale ga l cause of a ct ion [, ] ” an d “ iss ue s of

pr ude nti al standi ng [ cannot be 4 w a i ve d] p r i or

t o t he c om

pl e t i ono f at r i a l o n t he m e r i ts.” De utsche Bank II , 201 6- 5 N MS C- 013, ¶ 16; se e als o Ru le 1- 01 2( H)(2 ) NMRA (“ A de fe nse of fa il ure 6 t o s t at e a cla im upo n wh ich r eli ef can be grant ed

7

. . . may be m ade in an y pl eadi ng perm itted or

8 or d e r e d

. . . o r b y m o t i o n f o r j u d g m e n t o n t he

9 plead ings, or at the t rial on t he merits. ”).

10 { 19} Af

ter changing the test from a j urisdictio nal one to a prudential one, the Court 1 1 i n De utsche Bank II

f irm ly sto od w ith R om er o ’ s de te rm ina tio n th at aparty se ek ing 12 to f or ec los e is “ re qui re d to de m onstrate und er [ the U CC ] tha t i t ha d st an din g to br ing 13 a fore closure action at the tim e it filed suit.” R om er o , 201 4- N MSC -0 07, ¶ 17; see 14 De utsche Bank II

, 201 6- N MS C- 013, ¶

¶ 20- 23. Thus, to de m onstrate standi ng o n a 15 pr ude nti al ba sis , the f

or ec los ing party

“ m ust de m onstrate tha t [ it] ha d th e ri ght to 16 enforce the note and the right t o fo re cl o s e the m ortgage at the tim e the fore closure 17 suit was filed. ” Phoenix F undi ng, LLC

v. Aurora Loan Servs., L LC , 20 16 -NMCA18 01 0, ¶ 15 , 3 65 P.3 d 8 , cert. gran ted , 201 6- N MC E RT -0 01, 365 P

. 3d 8 ; D eu tsc he B ank19 R om er o sta te s tha t a pa rty se ek ing to fo re cl ose m ust es tabl is h “ ti m el y 3 20 ow ne rs hip ” of

the not e an d m ortga ge , 2014 -N MS C- 007, ¶ 17, how ev er , re ad ing the 12 R om er o opi nio n as a who le , w e bel ie ve the Su pr em e Co urt’ s m en tio n of ow ne rs hip 13 wa s not in tended to l eg ally distin guish that concept from status as a holder of a 14 ne got ia

ble ins tr um en t unde r the U CC

. T he pr ope r inquir y is the re fo re w he the r sa id 15 pa rty is t he ho ld er, n ot th e o wne r. See § 55-3-301 (“ A per son m ay be a per son entit led 16 to e nf

or ce the ins tru m en t eve n th oughthe pe rs on i s no t the ow ne r of the 17 ins tr um en t[

. ] ”) ; N M S A197 8, § 55 -3 -1 10( c) (2 ) cm t. 3 ( 1992 ) (“ T his pr ovi sio n m er el y 18 de te rm ine s w ho can dea l w itha n in str um en t a s ahol de r. I t do es not de te rm ine 19 ow ne rs hip of

the ins tr

um en t or it s pr oc ee ds. ”) ; A

ppl ic ati on o

f the U nif orm 20 Comm ercial Code to Sele cted Issues Re latin g to Mortga ge Notes , a t 8 (A m . L awI nst

. 21 & U nif

. L awCo m

m ’ n N ov. 14, 201 1) ( “ T he r ule s th at de te rm ine w he the r a pe rs on 22 is e nti tle d to e nf

or ce anot e do n ot r equir e tha t pe rs on to be the ow ne r of the not e, a nd 23 a chan ge in ow ne rs hip of anot e doe s no t ne ce ssari ly br ing about

ac onc om itant 24 ch a ng e i n t he i de nt i t y of t he pe r so n e nt i t l e d t o e nf or c e t he no t e . . . . T he rules 25 co nc er

nin g tr an sf

er of ow ne rs hip a nd o the r int er es ts i n anot e . . . pr im ar ily r el at e to 26 who , am on g c om

pe ti ng c l a i m an ts , is en ti tl edto th e eco no m ic va lu e o f th e n ot e.” 27 (footnote om itted)). 14 1 I , 201 4- N MC A -0 90, ¶

8. I t re m ai ns cl ear tha t a pa rty se ek ing to pr ove standi ng m ust 3 2 s h o w t h a ti th a dt h e r i g h tt o e n f o r c e t h e n o t e a tt h e t i m e i tf i l e di t s c o m

p l a i n t. 3 De utsche Bank II

, 201 6- N MS C- 013, ¶

¶ 20- 27. Be ca

use w e re ve rs e on the iss ue of the 4 ri ght to en fo rc e the not e, w e nee d no t a ddr es s th e Ro m er os’ a rg um en t r eg ar din g th e 5 rig ht to for ecl os e th e m or tg ag e. 6 PN C M ortgage’s Right to Enf orce t he N ote 7 { 20} A cc or din g to N ew Me xic o law , a pr om iss or y not e is a

ne got ia ble ins tr um en t, 8 NMS A 1 9 7 8 , § 55-3-104(a), (b), (e) (1992), that can be e nforced by “ (i) the holder 9 of the ins tr

um en t, (i i) a nonh old er in poss es sio n of the ins tr um en t w ho h as the r igh ts 10 of ahol de r, or

( iii ) a pe rs on n ot i n po sse ssi on o f the ins tr um en t w ho i s e nti tle d to15

1 en fo rc e the ins tr

um en t purs ua nt t o [ ce rt ai n pr ovi sio ns of the U CC ]

. ” Se ct ion55- 3- 2 301; P hoe nixF

undi ng , 201 6- N MC A -0 10, ¶ 16. T he hol de r of the not e is “ the pe rs on 3 in pos session of a negotiab l e i n s t ru m en t that is pay able either to bear er or to an 4 ide nti fi ed

pe rs on tha t i s th e per son in poss es sio n[

. ] ” Se ct ion55- 1- 201( b) (2 1) (A ). T he 5 be ar er i s “ a p e r s o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f a n e g o t i ab l e i n s t r u m e n t

. . . t h a t i s p a y ab le to 6 be areror i nd or se d i n b la nk [.]” Secti on 55 -1 -2 01 (b )(5 ). 7 { 21} W e turn to PNC Mortgage’ s argum ent that either the indorsed no te provided 8 dur ing sum

m ar y j udgm en t pr oc ee din gs or the uni ndor se d no te a tta ch ed to the 9 co m pla int pr ovi de d st an din g. 10 A. The In dorsed N ote 11 { 22} PN C M ortga ge arg ue s tha t the ind or se d no te pr ovi de s aba sis f or standi ng 12 be ca use P N C M ortgag e was in poss es sio n of abe ar er ins tr um en t and thus ha d th e 13 right to enforce the note. This argum ent was a ccepted by the district court and served 14 as the ba sis f

or gr an tin g su m

m ar y j udgm en t t o P N C M ortga ge . A cc or din g to the 15 district court, PN C Mortgage’ s predecessor in int erest m ade the note a bear er 16 instrum ent by

indorsin g it in b l an k , an d PNC Mortgage wa s in pos session of that 17 original no te. The district court there fore held that PN C Mortgage ther eby established 18 a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

it s r igh t t o e nf

or ce the not e an d ha d e sta bli she d st an din g.16

1 { 23} “ A blank i ndor se m en t .

. . doe s not iden tif y ape rs on t o w hom

the ins tr um en t 2 is pa y ab le bu t i ns te adm ak es it pa y ab le t o a n yo n e w ho ho ld s i t as be arerpape r.” 3 R om er o , 2014-NMS C-007, ¶ 24. In genera l, a pe rs o n or entity

in poss ession o f a 4 be ar er ins tr um en t i s c onsi de red a h old er , and a hol de r of

abe ar er ins tr um en t i s 5 en tit le d to e nf

or ce its te rm s. Se ct ion 55- 1- 201( b) (2 1) (A ) (d ef ini ng “ hol de r” und er

the 6 UCC ); § 55-3-301 (“ ‘ Person entitled to enforce’ an instrum ent m eans (i) the hold er 7 of the ins tr um en t [ or] ( ii) anon hol de r in p oss es sio n of the ins tr um en t w ho h as the 8 ri ght s of

a ho ld er . . . . A pe rs on m ay be a pe rs on e nti tle d to e nf

or ce the ins tr

um en t 9 even thoug h the person is n ot the owner of the instrum ent[.] ”). 10 { 24} H er e, the ind or se d no te co nt ai ned tw o in dor se m en ts— a spe ci al ind or se m en t 11 an d an i n dorsem ent in blank . A lthou gh neith er indorsem ent is dated, the parties 12 ap pe ar

to ag re e tha t ha d P N C M ortga ge be enable to pr ove tim el y poss es sio n of the 13 ind or se d no te , it w oul d def ea t the Ro m er os’ standi ng c la im

. H ow ev er , the Ro m er os 14 ar gue tha t prod

uc tio n of the doc um en t i s in suf fi ci en t t o pr ove P N C M ortga ge ’ s r igh t 1 5 t o e n f o r c e a tt h e t i me t h e c o mp l a i n twa s f i l e d , a s r e qu i r e db y Romer o. W e ag ree. 16 { 25} PN C Mortg ag e failed to establish th at it had a right to enforce the indorsed 17 note. T he note cam e to light y ears a fter P NC Mortgage filed its com plai n t . There 18 ex ist s no ev ide nc e tha t at the tim e it fi le d its co m pla int , PN C M ortga ge pos se sse d th e 19 or igi na l of

the ind or se d not e. Mor eo ve r, the re ex ist s no ev ide nc e as to the da te of the17

1 ind or se m en ts o n th e ind or se d no te

. A s in dic at ed in P hoe nixF

un di ng , “ wher e an 2 ind or se d no te is not

pr oduc ed unt il af te r the pla int if

f ha s fil ed fo r fo re cl osur e an d th e 3 indo rsem ent is und ated, the indo rsem ent is insu fficient to show that the plaintiff w as 4 th e h ol de r of

th atno te at t he ti m e th e fo recl os ur e co m pl ai nt was fi le d.” 20 16 -NMCA5 01 0, ¶ 20; see also Deutsche B ank II , 20 16

- N M S C

- 01 3, ¶

¶ 24

- 25 ( ho l ding that 6 al tho ugh anund at ed ind or se m en t does not im pa ct the va lid ity

of the not e, pr es en tin g 7 anund at ed

ind or se d no te a ft er

the c om pla int is fi le d do es not

pr ove tha t a

party 8 seeking to foreclose poss essed the blank no te w hen it filed suit). 9 { 26} Although we hold th at PN C Mortgage fa iled to prove its prim a facie case based 10 on the ind or se d no te , w e be lie ve tha t i t i s im portant t o m en tio n th at R om er o did not 11 ex ist a t the ti m e the dis tr ic t c ourt i ss ue d its o rd er gr an tin g su m

m ar y j udgm en t and 12 thu s th e tim el ine ss r equir em en t e num er at ed in R om er o wa s not b ef

o re the district 13 court in this case. The test for establishing standing in fo re cl osure actions evolv ed 14 dr am at ic al ly dur ing the pe nde nc y of thi s a ppe al

. O ur

S upr em e Co urt i ssu ed R om er o 15 two m on th s af

te r th e fi li ng of t h e d o c k e t i n g s ta te m en t i n t hi s ca se . R om er o 16 de fi nit ive ly st at ed tha t a party se ek ing to fo re cl ose m

ust , a s am at te r of

standi ng, 17 es ta bli sh i ts r igh t t o f

or ec los e at

the tim e the co m

pla int is fi le d. T his w as not ac le ar ly 18 ar tic ula te d st an da rd

a t the ti m e the dis tr ic t c ourt ru le d on PN C M ortga ge ’ s m oti on f or 19 sum m ar y j udgm en t. T he Ro m er os a le rt ed the dis tr ic t c ourt t o R om er o in a m oti on f or18

1 post-judgm ent relief. How ever, the m otion wa s filed after the case had been a

ppealed 2 to this Court and after

the parties had notified this Court of R om er o in m em or an dain 3 t h e c a l e n d a r i n g p ro ce s s . Th e r ec o rd o n ap p ea l d o es n o tco n t ai n t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 4 or de r on the m oti on f

or pos t-ju dg m ent r el ie f an d ne ith er party m ad e a tr an sc ri pt o r 5 disc of the hearing available to this Court on a ppeal. Due to the fact that the appeal 6 continu ed, w e assum e that the m otion wa s deni ed

. On ap peal, PN C Mortgage does 7 not a rg ue tha t R om er o is not appl icable. Ther efore, in view of R om er o , the district 8 co ur t’s an al y si s was de fic ie nt

. 9 B. The U nindorsed Note 10 { 27} PN C M ortga ge a lso a rg ue s that it has st an din g to e nf or ce the Ro m er o no te 11 be ca u s e th e unindo rsed note, a copy of w hich was attac hed to the com plaint, wa s 12 pa y ab le to PN C M ortga ge ’ s pr ed ec es sor in int er es t. PN C Mortga ge ar gue s that it is 13 thu s e nti tle d to e nf

or ce the not e be ca

use , a s asuc ce sso r in i nte re st and a hol de r of the 14 not e, it

ha d a ll of

the r igh ts o f its pr ed ec es sor in int er es t. 15 { 28} A s in dic at ed

e ar lie r, ahol de r of a not e an d a nonh old er in p oss es sio n of anot e 16 w i t h t h e ri gh ts of a ho ld er h av e th e ri gh t t o e nf or ce t he no te

. See § 5 5

- 3

- 3 0 1

. O ur 17 Su pr em e Co urt c lari fi ed

in R om er o , how ev er , tha t i n or de r to e nf or ce anot e m ad e 18 pa y ab le to a thi rd pa rty , a suc ce sso r m ust pr ove tha t it ha s both ph y sic al pos se ssi on 19 of the note as we ll as the right to enforce it through a proper indorsem ent or transfer19

1 via ne got ia tio n. 201 4- N MS C- 007, ¶ 21 (ho ldi ng tha t “ a thi rd party m ust pr ove both 2 phy sic al pos se ssi on and the r igh t t o e nf or ce m en t thr oughe ith er

apr ope r ind or se m en t 3 or a transfer by negotiatio n” and refe rencing the definition of “ negotiatio n” contained 4 in S ec ti on 55 -3 -2 01( a) ). Me re pos se ssi on o f a not e pa y ab le to a thi rd party is 5 th eref or e in su ffi ci en t. Se e Rom er o , 2014-NMS C-007, ¶ 23 (“ Possessio n of an 6 uni ndor se d no te m ad e pa y ab le to a thi rd party does n ot e sta

bli sh the r igh t of 7 en fo rc em en t, j ust

a s f ind ing alos t c he ck

m ad e pay ab le to a pa rt ic ular pa rty doe s no t 8 al lowthe fin de r to c as h it

. ”) ; see also Deutsche B ank II , 201 6- N MS C- 013, ¶

32 9 (s am e). R om er o the re fo re re qui re s tha t a suc ce sso r in i nte re st s ee kin g to e sta bli sh i ts 10 ri ght to fo re cl ose pr ovi de som e ev ide nc e of apr ope r ind or se m en t or tr an sf er via 11 ne got ia tio n a s part

of it s pr im a fa ci e ca se . A cc or din g to our S upr em e Co urt, “ the 12 m ino r up- fr ont co m

pli an ce co sts tha t fo re cl osur e pla int if fs w ill inc ur

by c onf irm ing 13 tha t the y

ha ve the pr ope r doc um en ta tio n before fi lin g su it ar e a sm al l pr ic e to p ay f or 14 pr ote ct ing the r igh ts o f N ew Me xic o hom eo w ne rs an d the int eg ri ty of the St at e’ s ti tle 15 sy s t em

by requiring strict and tim ely com pliance with long-standi ng property law 16 requirem ents.” De utsche Bank II , 201 6- N MS C- 013, ¶

22. 17 { 29} In supp ort of

it s c la im

tha t i t w as ahol de r of

the uni ndor se d no te , P NC 18 Mortgage offer ed the Ely aff idavit statin g that “ PN C is the legal holder of a 1 9 Pr om i s s o ry N o t e ( ‘ N o t e ’ ) d a t e d M a y 0 2 , 2 0 0 6 , a n d e x e c u t e d b y D a n a R o m e ro a nd 20 E uge ne Ro m er o, in the or igi na l pri nc ipa l sum of $240 , 000. 00[

. ] ” T he Ro m er os arg ue20

1 that the Ely

aff idavit failed to acco m

plish its apparent purpose to establ ish as an 2 undi sput ed

f ac t tha t P N C M ortga ge ha d st an din g. 3 { 30} W e giv e lit tle w ei ght to the Ro m er os’ appe lla te a tta ck be ca use the Ro m er os d o 4 not poi nt o ut whe re in the distr ic t c ourt pr oc ee din gs the y sou ght to str ike the E ly 5 affid av it

. Se e Ch av ez

v . R onqu ill o , 198 0- N MC A -0 69, ¶ ¶ 19- 20, 94 N

. M. 442 , 612 6 P.2 d 2 34 (“ A par t y mu s t mo v e to st rik e an affi da vi t t ha t v io la te s R ul e [1 -0 56 (E) 7 N MR A ]

. ”)

. H ow ev er , w e do n ot e tha t the state m en t tha t P N C M ortga ge is the 8 “ hol de r” of

the not e is undou

bte dly ale ga l co nc lu si on . A n a ff idavit sub m itt ed

in 9 supp ort of

am oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm ent “ sha ll se t f

orth s uc h f

ac ts a s w oul d be 10 adm iss ibl e in ev ide nc e[

. ] ” Ru le 1- 056( E ). T es tim ony by alay w itn es s “ tha t se ek s to 11 state a legal conclusio n is inadm issib le.” Sta te v . Cl iff ord , 199 4- N MS C- 048, ¶

20, 12 117 N

. M. 508 , 873 P

. 2d 2 54; Sta te v . E lli ott , 2001 -N MC A -1 08, ¶ 22, 131 N

. M. 390 , 13 37 P

. 3d 1 07. W e al so n ote tha t the E ly a ff idavit is of que sti ona

ble va lue giv enthe 14 la ck of e vid en ce in supp ort of

the state m en t tha t P N C M ortgag e was a nd i s a 15 “ hol de r. ” W e hol d th at the a ff idavit ha s no im

pa ct a s to this C ourt’ s de ci sio n 16 re ga rd ing standi ng. 17 { 31} PN C Mortgage also argues that because it is a successor in interest, a s a m atter 18 of law , it ha d N CB I’ s ri ght to en fo rc e the uni ndor se d no te

. P N C M ortga ge ba se s it s 19 ar gum en t onthe li sti ng o f the m er ge rs se t ou t in ce rt if ic at ion s fr om

the se cr et ar

y of 20 N at ion al Ci ty

Bank and PN C Bank and in m er ge r doc um en ta tio n f ro m the O ff ic e of21

1 the Co m

ptr oll er of the Curr en cy

pr es en te d to the dis tr ic t c ourt. P N C M ortga ge a lso 2 re lie s onapr ovi sio n inthe N at ion al Bank A ct tha t pr ovi de s: 3 A ll ri ght s, f

ranc his es , a nd int er es ts o f the ind ivi dua l m er gin g banks or 4 ba nki ng as soc ia tio ns in an d to ev er y ty pe of pr ope rty (r ea l, pe rs ona l, a nd 5 m ixe d) a nd c hoses in act ionsha ll be tr an sf er re d to a nd v es te d inthe 6 rece iving association byvirtue of such m erger without any deed or other 7 tr an sf

er . T he r ec ei vin g a sso ci at ion , upo n th e m er ge r and wit hout a ny 8 or de r or

oth er a ct ionon the part

of any co ur

t or othe rw ise , sha ll hol d and 9 en

joy all rig ht s o f pr op ert y , fran ch is es , and in te res ts [.] 10 12 U. S. C. § 215 a(e) (2012). 11 { 32} The R om eros argue that, while t h e Na tional Bank Act offe rs “ a pla usi ble 12 sc en ar io” show ing how the not e “ co uld be en fo rc ea ble unde r ap pli ca

ble statut es a nd 13 case law[ ,] ” that “ scenario .

. . m ust y ield when the ac tua l fact s co nt rad ic t t ha t s to ry .” 14 T he Ro m er os poi nt to the “ tim el ine of e ve nts ” re la tin g to the not e, the Q W R r es pons e 15 le tte r, the e xis te nc e of t he se curi tiz ed tr ust , the m er ge rs , the f

or ec los ur e co m

pla int , 16 an d th e la te r- ind or se d no te appe ar ing in sum m ar y j udgm en t pr oc ee din gs, al l sh ow ing 17 tha t P N C M ortga ge w as li ke ly not the hol de r of

the uni ndor se d no te w he n it f ile d it s 18 co m pl ai nt . The Ro m ero s al so arg ue th atwhi le th e m erg er h i s t o r y ma y ha ve sh own 19 PN C Mortga ge as suc ce sso r to the c or por at e en tity

or igi na tin g th e loan, “ it doe s no t 20 showhow or whe th er tha t su cc es sio n in cl ude d any int er es t i n th e subj ec t [ n] ote or 21 [m ] ortgage.” And the Rom eros argue that a reasonable inference can be drawn that 22 the note and m ortgage we re transferre d to the trust b efore the m erger.22

1 { 33} The R om eros contend that, altogether, genuine issues of m aterial facts exist as 2 to whethe r PN C M ortga ge pos se sse d and w as hol de r of the uni ndor se d no te a t the 3 tim e the com

plaint was filed. The Rom eros em phasize that because the securitized 4 tr ust inc lud es “ 2006 ” in its na m e, be ca use the e ff

ec tiv e da te of

the tr ust is usua lly

in 5 the na m e of

the tr ust , a nd bec au se tr

ust s ty pic al ly c los e thi rty

to nin ety day s a ft er

the 6 ef fe ct ive date, i t i s li ke ly

tha t the tr

ust a cc ep te d th e Ro m er o no te in 2006 or e ar ly 7 2007

. Be ca

use P N C M ortga ge did

not m er ge w iththe Ro m er os’ le nde r unt il 2008 , the 8 Ro m er os arg ue tha t the re is a s tr ong inf er en ce tha t P N C M ortga ge w as not the 9 suc ce sso r to the or igi na l len de r. A cc or din g to the Ro m er os, in fa ili ng to do cu m en t the 10 cri ti cal ch ai n o f ev en ts of t ran sf er o f th e n ot e to PNC Mort ga ge or to th e tru st , PNC 11 Mor tga ge le ft a “ m

uddl ed sto ry of ch ai n of tit le , ” w hic h cr ea te d suf fi ci en t do ubt

a nd 12 confusion with irr egularities and m at er i al facts in d isput e to preclude sum m ary 13 j udgm ent in PNC Mortgage’ s favor. 14 { 34} W e agre e that the lack of inform ation r egarding the tr ansfer of the unin dorsed 15 not e cr ea te s ge nui ne iss ue s of m at er ia l f

ac t a s to w he the r PN C M ortga ge w as the 16 hol de r of

the uni ndor se d no te a t the tim e of fi lin g of the c om pla int

. T he re is nothin g 17 in the r ec or d to sho w tha t P N C M ortga ge of fe re d e vid en ce to co nf

irm tha t the 18 Ro m er o no te w as inc lud ed in the m er ge r. I n f ac t, the re is a not ic ea

ble la ck of 19 doc um en ts a ct

ua lly sho w ing tha t P N C M ortga ge r ec ei ve d th e uni ndorsed not e an d 20 ha d it in ha nd a t the ti m e PN C Mor tga ge fi le d the co m

pla int

. Be fo re the ind or se d no te23

1 ap pe ar ed , the r ec or ds c ont ai ne d on ly ac opy of the uni nd or se d no te a tta ch ed to the 2 com plaint and a copyof letters f rom PN C Mortgage stating that the loan was ow ned 3 bya s e c u r i t i z e d t r

u s t

. W i t h t h e l i m i t e d a v a i l ab l e i n f o rm a t i o n , i t i s p o s s i b l e t ha t t he 4 uni ndorsed no te cam e to P N C w iththe m er ge r doc um en ta tio n. H ow ev er , it is al so 5 poss ibl e tha t the se curi tiz ed tr ust w as the hol de r of (o r oth er w ise in poss es sio n of

) the 6 unin dorsed not e at the tim e the com plaint w as filed. A lthou gh we do not believe that 7 the Q W R r es pons e le tte r, w hic h st at es tha t the se curi tiz ed tr ust “ ow ne d” the loan, 8 w hol ly ne ga te s P N C M ortga ge ’ s c la im of ti m el y po ss es sio n, it

doe s r ai se ge nui ne 9 iss ue s of

m at er ia l f

ac t r eg ar din g w ha t r igh ts and r es pons ibi lit ie s w ere r et ai ne d by 10 PN C M ortga ge or

it s pr ed ec es sor

in int er es t duri ng the sa le or tr an sf er of the loan and 11 w he the r the ti m ing of a ny sa le or tr an sf er int er fe re d w ithP N C M ortga ge ’ s in te re st. 12 { 35} W e not e tha t the e xis te nc e of ase curi tiz ed tr

ust doe s no t auto m at ic al ly

pr ohi bit 13 a pa rty o th er th an the tru st f ro m ha vin g ar igh t t o e nf

or ce anot e. I t i s im

portant t o 14 dif fe re nti at e betw ee n the ow ne r of ase curi tiz ed

loa n, w hic h is the inv es tor

ha vin g th e 15 ri ght to the ec onom ic be ne fi ts o f the not e suc h a s th e pr oc ee ds f ro m f or ec los ur e, a nd 16 th e en ti ty wit h th e rig ht to en fo rce t he no te ag ai ns t t he bo rro wer. Se e supra , n.3 . PNC 17 Mortgage m ay

have b een able to establish a right to enforce the unind orsed note had 18 it shown do cu m en ta tio n c onf irm ing w hat en ti ty

ha d po sse ssi on o f it thr ough 19 ne got ia tio n or

tr an sf er a t the ti m e of

f ili ng the c om

pla int

. 20 CON CLU SION24

1 { 36} PN C Mortgage fa iled to prove stand ing as to the indo rsed note. G enuine issu es 2 of m at er ia l f

ac t e xis t r eg ar din g PN C M ortga ge ’ s r igh t t o e nf or ce the uni ndor se d no te 3 at the ti m e it fi le d th e co m

pla int

. F or

the r ea sons se t fo rth inthi s O pin ion , w e re ve rs e 4 the district c ourt’ s order granting sum m ary j udgm ent and rem and the case for further 5 pr oc eed in gs . 6 { 37} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 8 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e

9 WE CO NCUR:

10

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 11 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , C hi ef Ju dg e

12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 13 R OD ERIC K T . KE N N ED Y , Ju dg e