This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 2 TRUST COMPANY, AS 3 TRUSTEE OF THE HOME 4 EQUITY MORTGAGE LOAN 5 ASSET-BACKED TRUST 6 SERIES IN ABS 2005-C, 7 HOME EQUITY MORTGAGE 8 LOAN ASSET-BACKED 9 CERTIFICATES, SERIES in 10 ABS 2005-C UNDER THE 11 POOLING AND SERVICING 12 AGREEMENT DATED 13 SEPTEMBER 1, 2005, 14 Plaintiff-Appellee, 15

v. NO. A-1-CA-36753 16 EARNEST M. LUCERO a/k/a 17 ERNEST M. LUCERO and 18 CATHY I. LUCERO, 19 Defendants-Appellants, 20 and 21 THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 22 DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION 23 & REVENUE, 24 Defendant. 252 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY 1 Abigail Aragon, District Judge 2 Rose L. Brand & Associates, P.C. 3 Eraina Marie Edwards 4 Albuquerque, NM 5 for Appellee 6 Ernest M. Lucero and 7 Cathy I. Lucero 8 Las Vegas, NM 9 Pro Se Appellants 10 NM Taxation & Revenue Department 11 Elena Marie Romero Morgan 12 Santa Fe, NM 13 for Defendant 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 HANISEE, Judge. 16
{1} Defendants Ernest M. Lucero and Cathy I. Lucero (the Luceros), 17 self-represented litigants, appeal from the di strict court’s order granting Plaintiff 18 Deutsche Bank National Trus t Company’s (the Bank) motion for summary judgment 19 and order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter 20 jurisdiction (Summary Judgment Order). This Court’s calendar notice proposed 213 summary affirmance. [CN 1] The Luceros filed a memorandum in opposition to the 1 proposed disposition. Not persuaded by the Luceros’ arguments, we affirm. 2
{2} The Luceros continue to argue that the Bank lacked standing to bring a 3 foreclosure action because it did not prove physical possession of the note or right to 4 enforce the note through either a proper indor sement or a transfer by negotiation and 5 that the mortgage electronic registrati on system’s (MERS) assignment of mortgage 6 to the Bank was ineffective to establish the Bank’s right to enforce the note. [MIO 1-6, 7 7-9] This Court proposed to conclude both that the Bank had the right to enforce the 8 note and that it established ownership of the mortgage through proper assignments. 9 See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co.v. Beneficial N.M. Inc. , 2014-NMCA-090, ¶ 8, 335 10 P.3d 217 (stating that in order “to establish standing to foreclose, a lender must show 11 that, at the time it filed its complaint for foreclosure, it had: (1) a right to enforce the 12 note, which represents the debt, and (2 ) ownership of the mortgage lien upon the 13 debtor’s property”). 14
{3} Specifically, the calendar notice proposed to conclude that as holder of the note 15 indorsed in blank at the time the complain t for foreclosure was filed, the Bank was 16 entitled to enforce the note. [CN 4] See NMSA 1978, § 55-1-201(b)(21)(A) (2005) 17 (defining “the holder of the instrument” entitled to enforce an instrument as “the 18 person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to 194 an identified person that is the person inpossession”). The Luceros seemingly argue 1 that because negotiation of the note does not occur until the indorsement payable to 2 the bearer is made on the note, there is no indorsement specifically made to, i.e. 3 naming, the Bank, and the Bank never signe d the indorsement; absent an indorsement 4 on the note made payable to the bearer, the Bank had no right to enforce the note 5 because it did not account for possessi on of the unindorsed note by proving the 6 transaction through which it acquired the note; and the Bank therefore failed to prove 7 it acquired rights as holder of the note. [MIO 2, 6, 7] We disagree. 8
{4} At issue here was a blank indorsement , or signature without identifying the 9 bearer. See NMSA 1978, § 55-3-205(b) (1992) (“If an indorsement is made by the 10 holder of an instrument and it is not a special indorsement, it is a ‘blank 11 indorsement.’ ”). “A blank indorsement, as its name suggests, does not identify a 12 person to whom the instrument is payable but instead makes it payable to anyonewho 13 holds it as bearer paper.” Bank of N.Y. v. Romero , 2014-NMSC-007, ¶ 24, 320 P.3d 1 14 (emphasis added)). The Bank, as the bearer of the note indorsed in blank, is the holder 15 of the note. See NMSA 1978, § 55-3-104(a)(1), (b), (e) (1992) (defining “negotiable 16 instrument” as including a “note” made “payab le to bearer or to order”); NMSA 1978, 17 § 55-3-301 (1992) (defining “[p]erson entitle d to enforce” a negotiable instrument); 18 see Romero , 2014-NMSC-007, ¶ 21 (stating that a person is entitled to enforce a note 195 when they are the holder of the instrument). “When indorsed in blank, an instrument 1 becomes payable to bearer and may be negotiated by tr ansfer of possession aloneuntil 2 specially indorsed.” NMSA 1978, Section 55-3-205(b) (2005) (emphasis added). In 3 Romero , our Supreme Court clarified that the “blank indorsement . . . established the 4 [b]ank as a holder because the [b]ank [was] in possessi on of bearer paper[.]” Romero , 5 2014-NMSC-007, ¶ 26. Accordingly, in the present case, the Bank established the 6 right to enforce the note through a transfer by negotiation. SeeNMSA 1978, § 55-3- 7 201(a) (“ ‘Negotiation’ means a transfer of possession . . . of an instrument by a 8 person other than the issuer to a person who thereby becomes its holder.”). 9
{5} The calendar notice further proposed to conclude that the Bank was the owner 10 of the mortgage through proper assignment, as established by the assignments of 11 mortgage attached to the complaint. [C N 6-7] The Luceros now argue that the 12 assignments of mortgage werevoid due to errors and inaccuracies in those documents. 13 [MIO 7] First, the Luceros assert that the 2008 assignment of mortgage identifies a 14 foreign loan number of 1005916946, when in fact the correct loan number is 15 121468055, as identified on both the note and the mortgage; and that this material fact 16 demonstrates an improper transfer and renders the assignment le gally void. [MIO 8] 17 Second, the Luceros assert that both the 2008 and 2013 assignments of mortgage 186 incorrectly identify the mortgage loan as recorded on July 6, 2007, and July 6, 2005, 1 respectively, when it was in fact recorded on July 8, 2005. [MIO 8-9] 2
{6} The Luceros rely on an exhibit attach ed to their memorandum in opposition that 3 appears to be a copy of the mortgage. [MIO PDF 15] While it appears to be a 4 substantially true copy of the mortgage, the actual mortgage doc ument filed in the 5 record proper and considered by the district court is slightly different; it has slightly 6 larger print and contains redactions not pres ent in the attached e xhibit. [Compare MIO 7 PDF 15, with 1 RP 12] Similarly, the note and 2008 assignment of mortgage attached 8 to the memorandum in opposition are also slightly different than what appears in the 9 record proper. [Compare MI O PDF 14, with 1 RP 6; Compare MIO PDF 13, with 1 10 RP 32] “Reference to exhibits not in the record proper and not presented to the district 11 court for consideration is improper and a violation of the Rules of Appellate 12 Procedure.” Durham v. Guest , 2009-NMSC-007, ¶ 9, 145 N.M. 694, 204 P.3d 19. 13 Nevertheless, the Luceros have not provide d any authority, and we are aware of none, 14 to support the contention that these assignments of mortgage, with proper 15 identification of parties, are rendered void based on a reference to a recordation date 16 that may be inaccurate. See Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co. , 2014-NMCA-031, ¶ 28, 320 17 P.3d 482 (“Where a party cites no authority to support an argument, we may assume 18 no such authority exists.”). 197 {7} Third, the Luceros contend that the 2009 assignment of mortgage is legally void 1 because “IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB” is a separate, unknown entity from “IndyMac 2 Bank, FSB” and “IndyMac Federal Bank, FS B” is not identified in the previous 3 mortgage assignment nor on the original note or mortgage, and id entifies an incorrect 4 date of July 6, 2007, as the date the mort gage was recorded. [MIO 8-9] While there 5 is a typographical error in the date, th e document identifies the correct document 6 number 200500939. [RP 33] In addition, the a ssignment of mortgage expressly states 7 “IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB fka IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. ” [RP 33], indicating the 8 name the Bank was formerly known as in the previous 2008 assignment of mortgage. 9 [RP 32] Consequently, we similarly conclude that the asserted errors do not render the 10 assignments of mortgage void. See Curry , 2014-NMCA-031, ¶ 28. 11
{8} Lastly, in response to this Court’s propos al to conclude that the Luceros failed 12 to meet their burden to defeat summary judgment, they argue that they had previously 13 filed a motion to dismiss butwere never afforded a hearing at which to present 14 evidence of the specific eviden tiary facts at issue. [MIO 10-11] Regardless, as the 15 party opposing summary judgment, the Luceros had the burden of “mak[ing] an 16 affirmative showing by affidavit or other admissible evidence that there is a genuine 17 issue of material fact once a prima f acie showing is made by the movant.” Associated 18 Home & RV Sales, Inc. v. Bank of Belen , 2013-NMCA-018, ¶ 29, 294 P.3d 1276 198 (internal quotation marks and citation omitte d). Their prior motion to dismiss, for 1 which no evidentiary hearing was held, does not absolve them of that burden. To the 2 extent they argue that they were never afforded a hearing to present evidence on the 3 motion for summary judgment, “[i]n considering a motion for summary judgment, the 4 court may, but is not required to, hold an oral hearing.” Nat’l Excess Ins. Co. v. 5 Bingham , 1987-NMCA-109, ¶ 9, 106 N.M. 325, 742 P.2d 537. The Luceros had the 6 opportunity to respond in writing to the motion for summary judgment and to submit 7 documentary evidence in support thereof. Abse nt an indication in the record that the 8 party opposing summary judgment did not have an adequate opportunity to respond 9 to the movant’s arguments through the brie fing process, the disposition of a summary 10 judgment motion without oral argument is proper. See id

. 11
{9} For all of these reasons, and those statedin the calendar notice, we affirm the 12 district court’s Summary Judgment Order. 13
{10} IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

_______________________________ 15 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 16

WE CONCUR: 17

___________________________ 18 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 199 ___________________________ 1 EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge 2