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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 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, v. NO. A-1-CA-36651 PAUL CHANDHOK, 10 Defendant-Appellant.

11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Alan Malott, District Judge Rose L. Brand & Associates, P.C.

14 Eraina M. Edwards Albuquerque, NM for Appellee Paul Chandhok Albuquerque, NM Pro Se Appellant 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION VANZI, Chief Judge.

1 {1} Defendant Paul Chandhok appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate judgment. [RP 222-32; 233-35] In response to Defendant’s docketing statement, we proposed to affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO). After due consideration, we are unpersuaded and therefore affirm.

5 {2} In his MIO, Defendant almost exclusively restates the arguments from his docketing statement. We will not revisit those arguments or restate principles of law we articulated in our calendar notice, but instead address what we perceive as newly presented. Defendant appears to argue in his MIO that we should treat his “Motion to Vacate Judgment” as a motion asserting the “defense of failure to state a claim upon 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 proposed conclusion that Plaintiff HSBC Bank USA, National Association as Trustee for Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2007-4, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates (the Bank) has met our standing requirements. Again, the record supports the conclusion of the district court that, at the time the complaint was filed, the Bank had possession of the mortgage note, which was indorsed in blank. [RP 197-8 ¶ 5; RP 12] {3} For the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary disposition and above, we affirm the order of the district court denying Defendant’s motion to vacate.

19 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 __________________________________ 2 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge WE CONCUR:

4 _________________________________ M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge

6 _________________________________ EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge