Premier One Holdings, Inc. v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al

Filing 50

ORDER Granting 30 Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERD that Fannie Mae and FHFA are granted summary judgment on Premier One's claims for quiet title. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 7/131/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

PREMIER ONE HOLDINGS, INC., a Nevada )
Corporation,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
)
ASSOCIATION; DOES I through X; and ROE )
BUSINESS ENTITIES I through X,
)
)
)
Defendants,
)
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, )
)
as Conservator of the Federal National
)
Mortgage Corporation,
)
)
Intervenor,
)
)
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
)
ASSOCIATION,
)
)
Counter-Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
)
)
PREMIER ONE HOLDINGS, INC.; and
SOUTHERN TERRACE HOMEOWNER S )
)
ASSOCIATION,
)
)
Counter-Defendants.
)

Case No.: 2:14-cv-2128-GMN-NJK
ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 30) filed by
Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association

annie Mae

nor Federal

-Defendant Premier One Holdings, Inc.

25

Page 1 of 5

1

Premier One

2

(ECF No. 48).

3

I.

4

41), and Fannie Mae and FHFA filed a Reply

BACKGROUND
The present action involves the interplay between Nevada Revised Statutes § 116.3116

5

and 12 U.S.C. § 4617 as it relates to

6

Garden Street, Las Vegas, NV, 89148

7

was secured by a Deed of Trust. (Deed of Trust, ECF No. 32-1).1 The Deed of Trust named

interests in real property located at 5922 Moon
On November 15, 2006, the Property

8
9

as the beneficiary and ReconTrust
Company, N.A. as the trustee. (Id.). Fannie Mae acquired ownership of a mortgage loan

10

secured by the Property on December 1, 2006 and has owned it ever since. See (Exs. A B to

11

Curcio Decl., ECF No. 33).

12
13

conservatorships pursuant to HERA. See (Pollard Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 31).

14

On July 13, 2010, MERS assigned its beneficial interest to BAC Home Loans Servicing,

15

LP. (Corp. Assignment of Deed of Trust, ECF No. 32-2). On October 11, 2012, a Notice of

16

Delinquent Assessment Lien was recorded against the Property. (See Foreclosure Deed, ECF

17

No. 32-3). Then on January 9, 2013, a Notice of Default and Election to Sell was recorded

18

against the Property. (See id.). On May 25, 2013,

19

(the HOA

20

purchased the Property as the highest bidder at the May 25, 2013 foreclosure sale. (Id.). At no

21

time during the process did FHFA, as conservator of Fannie Mae

22

foreclosure. See (Pollard Decl. ¶¶ 3 4, ECF No. 31).

23

. (See id.). Premier One subsequently

On August 23, 2013, the beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust was assigned to

24
25

1

The Court takes judicial notice of Exhibits 1 5 (ECF Nos. 32-1 32-5) of
Judicial Notice (ECF No. 32). See Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distrib., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986). Each of
these documents

Page 2 of 5

1

Nationstar Mortgage LLC

2

Moreover, Nationstar assigned its beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust to Fannie Mae on

3

September 24, 2014 (Assignment of Deed of Trust, ECF No. 32-5).

4

II.

5

Nationstar

ent of Deed of Trust, ECF No. 32-4).

LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary adjudication when the

6

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

7

affidav

8
9

may affect the outcome of the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

10

(1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable

11

jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See id.

12

reasonable jurors, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, could return a verdict

13

Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P’ ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th

14

Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093, 1103 04 (9th Cir. 1999)). A

15

principal

16

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 24 (1986).

17

In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burden-

18

the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come

19

forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went

20

uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing

21

the a

22

Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). In

23

contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the

24

moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an

C.A.R. Transp.

25

Page 3 of 5

1

party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an elem

2

on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323

3

24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and

4

the court need not consider the

5

398 U.S. 144, 159 60 (1970).

6

See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,

If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing

7

party to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.

8

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute,

9

the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is

10

spute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the

11

T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors

12

Ass’ n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. 1987). In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid

13

summary judgment by relying solely on conclusory allegations that are unsupported by factual

14

data. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the opposition must go

15

beyond the assertions and allegations of the pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing

16

competent evidence that shows a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324.

17
18

truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.

19
20

Id. at 255. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is merely colorable or is

21

not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. See id. at 249 50.

22

III.

23

DISCUSSION
In the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, Fannie Mac and FHFA request that the

24
25

that would permit a
foreclosure on a superpriority lien to extinguish a property interest of Fannie Mae while it is

Page 4 of 5

1
2

Fannie Mae
Deed of Trust and thus did not convey the Property free and clear to Plaint

3
4

Fannie Mae
superior to the interest

5

13 13:3, ECF No. 30).

The Court addressed the applicability of 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) in Skylights LLC v.

6

Fannie Mae, 2015 WL 3887061 (D. Nev. June 24, 2015). After addressing many different

7

arguments regarding the applicability of section 4617(j)(3), the Court held that the plain

8

language of section 4617(j)(3) prohibits property of FHFA from being subject to a foreclosure

9

without its consent. Id. at *10.

10

Here, Fannie Mae has held an interest in the Property since December 1, 2006. See (Exs.

11

A B to Curcio Decl., ECF No. 33). Accordingly, because FHFA held an interest in the Deed

12

of Trust as conservator for Fannie Mae prior to the HOA foreclosure, section 4617(j)(3)

13
14
15
16

IV.

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

for Summary

Judgment (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED. The Court finds that 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) preempts

17
18

of its super-priority lien cannot extinguish a property interest of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac

19
20

sale of its super-

21

property secured by the Deed of Trust or convey the Property free and clear to Premier One.

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Fannie Mae and FHFA are granted summary

23
24
25

DATED this 13th day of July, 2015.

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Page 5 of 5