The Supreme Court held that the Superior Court properly issued its final judgment that allowed CDA to foreclose on two parcels of the Camachos’ real property for their failure to honor the mortgage’s terms.
The dispute arose after CDA initiated a foreclosure proceeding against the Camachos in the Superior Court. When CDA filed its lawsuit, it also brought the Department of Finance into the litigation because DOF possessed a tax lien against the Camachos’ real property. Before CDA could foreclose on the Camachos’ property, its claim to the real property and the Department of Finance’s competing claim had to be resolved. As a result of being brought into the lawsuit, the Department of Finance immediately filed a claim against the Camachos for unpaid taxes. The Camachos, however, neither responded to CDA’s nor the Department of Finance’s allegations.
After the Superior Court held several hearings and issued several orders without the Camachos being present, they eventually appeared in court and opposed CDA. They were initially successful in slowing down CDA in its attempt to foreclose on their property, but they never moved to vacate the Superior Court’s earlier decision that CDA could foreclose on their property. Despite the Camachos initial success in preventing CDA from foreclosing on their property, CDA and the Department of Finance eventually reached an independent settlement concerning their respective interests in the Camachos’ property. After the Superior Court accepted their agreement, CDA once again asked the Superior Court to issue a final judgment. The Superior Court agreed and issued a judgment ordering the Camachos to pay the full mortgage amount plus interest, late fees, costs, and penalty charges, for a total of $432,978.35, or have their property foreclosed on by CDA.
The Camachos then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court alleging that the final judgment was improperly certified as “final.” In the alternative, they argued that if the final judgment was properly issued that CDA failed to comply with the notice provisions from the Commonwealth’s Real Estate Mortgage Law, and also that the final judgment failed to protect their right of redemption also conferred by the Real Estate Mortgage Law. The Real Estate Mortgage Law requires that a mortgagee, like CDA, give notice to a property owner of its intent to foreclose on their property if they are in violation of the mortgage’s terms. The law lists several requirements that must be complied with for notice to be adequate. The law also confers on property owners a right of redemption. Redemption rights allow a property owner to buy back his or her property within a specified timeframe after a foreclosure sale.
The Supreme Court held that the Superior Court properly followed all procedural requirements in issuing the final judgment. It further held that it could not consider the Camachos’ notice argument because the resolution of that issue required the Court to examine evidence that was not first introduced in the Superior Court. Commonwealth law prohibits the Supreme Court from reviewing evidence that was not first introduced in the Superior Court. The Supreme Court finally held that the final judgment protected the Camachos’ redemption rights. While the Camachos did not raise their redemption argument in the Superior Court, the resolution of that issue only required the Supreme Court to review the trial court’s record and the applicable statutes.
The Supreme Court’s full opinion is Commonwealth Development Authority v. Antonio S. Camacho, et al., 2010 MP 19, and can be found at http://www.justice.gov.mp/.
