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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 BOKF, N.A., a national banking association d/b/a 2 BANK OF OKLAHOMA, as successor in interest 3 by merger to BANK OF OKLAHOMA, N.A., 4 Plaintiff-Appellee, 5

v. NO. 34,005 6 LORENZO LOPEZ and ALISON LOPEZ, 7 Defendants-Appellants. 8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY 9 James Lawrence Sanchez, District Judge 10 Richard Leverick 11 Albuquerque, NM 12 for Appellee 13 Ross & Garrett 14 Michael C. Ross 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 Law Offices of Sylvain Segal 17 Sylvain Segal, Jr. 18 Albuquerque, NM 19 for Appellants 202 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 VANZI, Judge. 2 {1} Defendants appeal the district court’s grant of a writ of assistance, which 3 required Defendants to vacate a house that had been the subject of a foreclosure action 4 filed by Plaintiff. We issued a notice of proposed disposition proposing to affirm, and 5 Defendants have responded w ith a memorandum in oppositi on. We have carefully 6 considered the arguments raised in that memorandum; how ever, for the reasons stated 7 in the notice of proposed disposition and below, we continue to believe summary 8 affirmance is appropriate in this case. We th erefore affirm the district court’s decision. 9 {2} In our notice we proposed to find that Defendants, by defaulting rather than 10 answering the complaint for fo reclosure that was filed in this case, had admitted the 11 allegations made in the complaint. We further proposed to hold that those allegations, 12 together with the documents attached to th e complaint, established Plaintiff’s standing 13 to bring the foreclosure action underlying the writ-of-assistance proceeding. In 14 response, Defendants make two arguments. First, they claim the “complaint does not 15 create a prima faciecase for foreclosure of the note and mortgage because it fails to 16 show that the Bank had standing.” [MIO 2] Second, theycontend it should not matter 173 whether they are raising standing following the entry of a default judgment, because 1 standing may be raised at any point in a case. [MIO 3] Significantly, they do not 2 dispute our proposed holding that, by failing tofile an answer to the foreclosure 3 complaint, they admitted the allegations of the complaint as true for purposes of this 4

case. 5 {3} We disagree with Defendants’ first argument because, as we discussed in the 6 notice of proposed disposition, the allegations of the complaint do in fact “create a 7 prima facie case for foreclosure” by establishing Plaintiff’s standing. As we pointed 8 out, the complaint alleged that Plaintiff was both a “holder” and a “holder in due 9 course” of the promissory note, terms of art that carry with them the authority to 10 enforce a note. See Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Lopes , 2014-NMCA-___ ¶¶ 9-10, ___ P.3d 11 ___, (No. 32,310, July 22, 2014). Furthermore, Plaintiff alleged that the mortgage was 12 assigned to it well before the date the foreclosure complaint was filed. These admitted 13 allegations, taken together, show that Plai ntiff had the authority to enforce both the 14 promissory note and the mortgage at the time the foreclosure comp laint was filed, and 15 thus also show that Plaintiff had standing to bring the foreclosure action. See Bank of 16 N.Y. v. Romero , 2014-NMSC-007, ¶ 17, 320 P.3d 1 (for plaintiff to establish standing 17 to pursue foreclosure of mortgage, plainti ff must establish it had timely ownership of 18 both the promissory note and the mortgage at the time the complaint was filed). 194 {4} As for Defendants’ second argument, we disagree because, contrary to 1 Defendants’ argument, the procedural posture of this case is crucial. As discussed 2 above, by defaulting rather than answerin g the foreclosure complaint, Defendants 3 admitted the facts necessary to establish Pl aintiff’s standing to pursue the foreclosure 4 action. This puts Defendants in an entirely different position than, for example, the 5 defendants in Romero , who objected to the plaintiff bank’s standing during the 6 foreclosure proceedings and thus put the plaintiff to its proof on that issue. See id. ¶ 6. 7 The plaintiff in Romerohad notice of the standing issue and therefore had an 8 opportunity to present any evidence it might have had concerning that issue; Plaintiff 9 in this case has never been put on notice of the issue and is entitled to rely on 10 Defendants’ admission by default of the alle gations made in the complaint. To hold 11 otherwise would render meaningless the de fault judgment that was entered in this 12 case, as well as the denial of Defendants’ Rule 1-060(B) NMRA motion to reopen the 13 default judgment. We therefore d ecline to adopt Defendants’ position. 14 {5} Based on the foregoing as well as the discussion in the notice of proposed 15 disposition, we affirm the district court’s decision in this case. 16 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 17

__________________________________ 18 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 19 WE CONCUR: 205 _________________________________ 1 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 2

_________________________________ 3 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 4