With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The Lichas argue that Flagstar’s blank indorsement on the back of the note was a “conflicting indorsement}]” that created an issue of fact precluding summary judgment. We disagree. Flagstar’s blank indorsement is consistent with Lending Solution’s special indorsement to Flagstar. Because Flagstar has shown that it is the holder of the note due to Lending Solutions’ special indorsement, the effect of Flagstar’s blank indorsement is to allow Flagstar to negotiate, or transfer, the note to another person. See NMSA 1978, § 55-3-201(a) (1992) (defining “[negotiation” as “a transfer of possession, whether voluntary or involuntary, of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who thereby becomes its holder”); Casarez v. Garcia, 1983-NMCA-013, ¶ 16, 99 N.M. 508, 660 P.2d 598 (<HOLDING>). The Lichas have not claimed that there is

A: holding that because a mortgage provides the security for the repayment of the note the person having standing to foreclose a note secured by a mortgage may be either the holder of the note or a nonholder in possession of the note who has the rights of a holder
B: recognizing that when a note is specially indorsed to a transferee that transferee may further negotiate the note only by his indorsement
C: holding that where a promissory note had never been made payable to plaintiff or to bearer nor had it ever been indorsed to plaintiff    defendants established that plaintiff was not the owner or holder of the note
D: holding that application note 6 is not mandatory
B.