HSBC Bank USA v. Chandhok
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR SEQUOIA MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-4, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8 v. NO. A-1-CA-36651 9 PAUL CHANDHOK, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 12 Alan Malott, District Judge 13 Rose L. Brand & Associates, P.C. 14 Eraina M. Edwards 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellee 17 Paul Chandhok 18 Albuquerque, NM 19 Pro Se Appellant 20 21 VANZI, Chief Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Defendant Paul Chandhok appeals from the district court’s order denying his 2 motion to vacate judgment. [RP 222-32; 233-35] In response to Defendant’s docketing 3 statement, we proposed to affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition 4 (MIO). After due consideration, we are unpersuaded and therefore affirm. 5 {2} In his MIO, Defendant almost exclusively restates the arguments from his 6 docketing statement. We will not revisit those arguments or restate principles of law 7 we articulated in our calendar notice, but instead address what we perceive as newly 8 presented. Defendant appears to argue in his MIO that we should treat his “Motion to 9 Vacate Judgment” as a motion asserting the “defense of failure to state a claim upon 10 which relief can be granted,” [MIO 9 ¶ 15] and analyze it under Rule 1-012 NMRA. 11 [MIO 9 ¶¶ 14-15] We disagree, but regardless, Defendant has not addressed our 12 proposed conclusion that Plaintiff HSBC Bank USA, National Association as Trustee 13 for Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2007-4, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates (the Bank) 14 has met our standing requirements. Again, the record supports the conclusion of the 15 district court that, at the time the complaint was filed, the Bank had possession of the 16 mortgage note, which was indorsed in blank. [RP 197-8 ¶ 5; RP 12] 17 {3} For the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary disposition and 18 above, we affirm the order of the district court denying Defendant’s motion to vacate. 19 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 1 2 __________________________________ LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4 _________________________________ 5 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 6 _________________________________ 7 EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
