In re Menendez

813 S.E.2d 680, 259 N.C. App. 460
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedMay 15, 2018
DocketNo. COA17-1341
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 813 S.E.2d 680 (In re Menendez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Menendez, 813 S.E.2d 680, 259 N.C. App. 460 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge.

*460Beach Capital Partners, LLC ("Respondent") appeals the trial court's order denying the appeal of the order to set aside foreclosure sale. Respondent contends its rights were "fixed" at the end of the 10-day upset bid period, and this Court should therefore order the trial court to instruct the clerk of court to confirm the sale and order Petitioner Trustee Services of Carolina, LLC ("Substitute Trustee") to convey property to Respondent. However, because Petitioners Jason C. Menendez *461and Ann C. Menendez ("Petitioners Menendez") reinstated their loan and cured their default prior to the conclusion of the 10-day upset bid period, and because the Substitute Trustee returned Respondent's deposit, Respondent is left without any further remedy. We conclude Respondent is not a real party in interest to the contract between Petitioners Menendez and Petitioner Quicken Loans ("Petitioner Quicken") and the Substitute Trustee, and therefore Respondent does not have standing to pursue this action. Accordingly, we grant Petitioners' motion to dismiss Respondent's appeal.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

This action originates with a loan agreement for $244,980.00 entered into by Petitioners Menendez on 13 May 2016. Petitioners Menendez secured a loan through a deed of trust on property located at 5715 Bayleaf Lane, Greensboro, North Carolina. The trustee at this time was Petitioner Quicken.

On 28 November 2016, Petitioner Quicken appointed Substitute Trustee under the Deed of Trust. On 2 December 2016, the Substitute Trustee filed a Notice of Hearing Prior to Foreclosure of Deed of Trust. This initiated a power of sale foreclosure proceeding against Petitioners Menendez pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 45-21.16 et seq.

On 31 January 2017, the Guilford County Assistant Clerk of Court entered an order allowing the Substitute Trustee to proceed with the foreclosure sale. On 28 February 2017, the Substitute Trustee held a foreclosure *683sale where Respondent was the highest bidder, with a bid of $190,100.00.

Less than 10 days later, on 6 March 2017, and prior to the confirmation of the sale, Petitioners Menendez reinstated their loan by making a $20,000.00 payment to Petitioner Quicken. On 7 March 2017, Petitioner Quicken notified the Substitute Trustee the Petitioners Menendez had reinstated their loan, and requested the rescission and setting aside of the foreclosure sale. On 17 March 2017, the Substitute Trustee filed a Motion to Set Aside the Foreclosure Sale and Report of Sale with Guilford County Superior Court. On 20 March 2017, the Guilford County Assistant Clerk of Court entered an Order to Set Aside the Foreclosure Sale and Report of Sale.

On 16 March 2017, the Substitute Trustee returned Respondent's deposit made at the foreclosure sale by sending a refund check to Respondent via UPS. Respondent received the check on 17 March 2017. On 21 March 2017, the Substitute Trustee mailed a Withdrawal of Notice *462of Hearing/Termination to the court and the Petitioners Menendez. The Substitute Trustee also filed the Withdrawal of Notice/Termination with the Guilford County Clerk of Court's Office on 24 March 2017.

On 1 June 2017, Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal of the Clerk's order setting aside the foreclosure sale. On 4 August 2017, the trial court entered an order denying the appeal of the order setting aside the foreclosure sale. On 31 August 2017, Respondent filed its notice of appeal to this Court.

II. Standard of Review

"Standing is a necessary prerequisite to the court's proper exercise of subject matter jurisdiction." Creek Pointe Homeowner's Ass'n v. Happ, 146 N.C. App. 159, 164, 552 S.E.2d 220, 225 (2001). " 'If a party does not have standing to bring a claim, a court has no subject matter jurisdiction[.]' " Woodring v. Swieter, 180 N.C. App. 362, 366, 637 S.E.2d 269, 274 (2006) (quoting Coker v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 172 N.C. App. 386, 391, 617 S.E.2d 306, 310 (2005) ). Whether a party has standing is a question of law which we review de novo . Indian Rock Ass'n v. Ball, 167 N.C. App. 648, 650, 606 S.E.2d 179, 180 (2004). The issue of standing may be raised for the first time on appeal and by this Court's own motion. Myers v. Baldwin , 205 N.C. App. 696, 698, 698 S.E.2d 108, 109 (2010).

III. Analysis

Respondent contends since its rights were "fixed" at the conclusion of the 10-day upset bid period, this Court should order the trial court to instruct the clerk of court to confirm the sale and order the Substitute Trustee to convey title and property to Respondent. We disagree.

"Every claim must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest[,]" Goodrich v. Rice , 75 N.C. App. 530, 536, 331 S.E.2d 195, 199 (1985) (citation omitted), and, by extension, "[a] party has standing to initiate a lawsuit if he is a 'real party in interest.' " Slaughter v. Swicegood , 162 N.C. App. 457, 463,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Yurk v. Terra Ctr., LLC
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2026
Eagles v. Integon Indem. Corp.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2026
Integon Indem. Corp. v. Eagles
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2026
In re: Custodial L. Enforcement Agency Recording
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2023

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
813 S.E.2d 680, 259 N.C. App. 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-menendez-ncctapp-2018.