Christiana Trust v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al

Filing 137

ORDER that Plaintiff Christiana Trust's 118 Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted as to the quiet title claim only. Defendant Cornerstone Homeowners Association's 119 Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant Terra West Collections Group's 120 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings are Granted. The 3 and 21 Notices of Lis Pendens are expunged. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the case. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 1/30/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

CHRISTIANA TRUST,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

Case No. 2:15-cv-01149-RFB-NJK
ORDER

v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC
CORNERSTONE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
TERRA WEST COLLECTIONS GROUP dba
Asset Management Services,

13
14
15

Defendants.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC,

16

Counter Claimant,

17
18

|

v.
CHRISTIANA TRUST,

19
Counter Defendant.
20 ___________________________________________
21

I.

INTRODUCTION

22
Before the Court are Plaintiff Christiana Trust’s (“Christiana Trust”) Motion for Summary

23
24

Judgment, Defendant Cornerstone Homeowners Associations’ Motion for Summary Judgment,

25

and Defendant Terra West Collections’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. ECF Nos. 118,

26

119, 120. For the following reasons, the Court grants all the motions.

27
28

///

1

II.

2

Christiana Trust sued Defendants on June 17, 2015, seeking declaratory relief and quiet

3

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

title that a nonjudicial foreclosure sale conducted in 2013 pursuant to NRS Chapter 116 on a Las

4
5

Vegas property did not extinguish a deed of trust attached to the property. ECF No. 1. Christiana

6

Trust filed the operative second amended complaint on April 18, 2016. ECF No. 48. Defendant

7

SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) answered on May 3, 2016. ECF No. 52. Cornerstone

8

answered on June 17, 2016. ECF No. 61. Cornerstone also filed a jury demand on June 17, 2016.

9

ECF No. 63. Defendant Terra West answered on June 17, 2016. ECF No. 48. On October 13, 2016,

10
11

the Court stayed the case pending the issuance of the mandate in Bourne Valley Court Trust v.

12

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ECF No. 78. The Court denied all pending motions without prejudice

13

with leave to refile when the stay is lifted on October 14, 2016. ECF No. 79. On April 4, 2019, the

14

Court lifted the stay. ECF no. 108. Christiana Trust and Cornerstone both moved for summary

15

judgment on July 1, 2019, while Terra West moved for judgment on the pleadings. ECF Nos. 118,

16
17
18
19
20
21

119, 120. A hearing on the pending motions was held on October 1, 2019, and this written order
now follows.
III.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court makes the following findings of undisputed and disputed facts:
a. Undisputed Facts

22
23

On or around August 2007, Erik Bryant purchased real property located at 10576

24

Danielson Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89129 (the “property”). The property is subject to the

25

covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) of the Cornerstone Homeowners Association

26

(“Cornerstone”), which requires property owners to pay monthly assessments. Bryant financed

27

his purchase with a $312,000 loan from Countrywide Bank, FSB, secured by a deed of trust

28

-2-

1

naming MERS as the nominee-beneficiary. As evidenced by a deed of trust recorded on June 20,

2

2011, all beneficial interest in the deed of trust was assigned from MERS to BAC Home Loans

3

Servicing, LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing (“BAC”). Bryant fell behind on monthly

4
5

assessments. A notice of claim of delinquent assessment lien was recorded against the property

6

by Defendant Assessment Management Services (“AMS”) as HOA trustee on behalf of the HOA

7

on September 23, 2011, stating an amount due of $2,204. On April 3, 2012, a notice of default

8

and election to sell was recorded against the property stating an amount owed of $3,427.62. In

9

response, on May 7, 2012, an employee of the law firm Miles Bauer LLP, on behalf of deed of

10
11
12
13

trust beneficiary Bank of America (BANA), as successor by merger to BAC, requested
payoff/HOA assessment information for the superpriority portion of the lien.
On May 10, 2012, AMS sent Miles Bauer an account statement dated through May 10,

14
2012, showing a total amount owed of $3,731.89. The account statement reflected that monthly
15
16

assessments of $49.45 were charged in 2011, when the notice of delinquent assessment lien was

17

recorded. Nine months of assessments in 2011 was $445.05. The account statement did not list

18

any maintenance or nuisance and abatement charges. AMS’s corporate witness has testified that

19

its policy at the time was to respond to a request to pay off the superpriority portion with a

20
demand for payment in full. On May 24, 2012, Miles Bauer sent a letter to AMS with a check for
21
22

$506.25, which represented more than the superpriority portion of the lien. AMS returned the

23

check for $506.25. At that time, AMS had a policy of rejecting such a “partial payment,” i.e., a

24

payment that was not for the full lien amount. AMS also had a policy that unless a lender with a

25

senior deed of trust tendered full payment of the entire lien amount, AMS would continue with

26
collections, proceed to sale, and eliminate the deed of trust. On July 11, 2013, a notice of
27
28

foreclosure sale was recorded against the property by AMS on behalf of the HOA. On August

-3-

1

21, 2013, a trustee’s deed upon sale was recorded indicating that SFR had purchased the property

2

for $18,000 on August 6, 2013. All beneficial interest in the deed of trust was assigned to

3

Christiana Trust as evidenced by an assignment of deed of trust recorded on April 4, 2014.

4
b. Disputed Facts

5
6
7

The Court finds there to be no material disputed facts.
IV.

LEGAL STANDARD

8
a. Summary Judgment
9
10

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to

11

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show “that there is no

12

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of

13

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). When

14
considering the propriety of summary judgment, the court views all facts and draws all
15
16

inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim,

17

747 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2014). If the movant has carried its burden, the nonmoving party

18

“must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts

19

…. Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the

20
nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)
21
22

(alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is improper for the Court to resolve

23

genuine factual disputes or make credibility determinations at the summary judgment stage.

24

Zetwick v. Cty. of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436, 441 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted).

25

b. Judgment on the Pleadings

26
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides: “Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
27
28

After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for

-4-

1

judgment on the pleadings.” This Circuit has held that “a Rule 12(c) motion is ‘functionally

2

identical’ to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion . . . . A judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when,

3

‘taking all the allegations in the pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

4
5

matter of law.’” Gregg v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 870 F.3d 883, 887 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations

6

omitted). In reviewing a grant of a Rule 12(c) motion, the Ninth Circuit “inquires whether the

7

complaint at issue contains ‘sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim of relief that

8

is plausible on its face.’” Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing

9

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “The Court may find a claim plausible when a

10
11

plaintiff pleads sufficient facts to allow the Court to draw a reasonable inference of misconduct,

12

but the Court is not required ‘to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.’”

13

Id. (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

14
15

V.

DISCUSSION

The Court finds that Christiana’s predecessor-in-interest Bank of America attempted tender

16
17

in this case, extinguishing the superpriority lien, and thus incorporates by reference and applies

18

the Nevada Supreme Court’s reasoning in Bank of Am., N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC,

19

427 P.3d 113, 116 (Nev. 2018) (en banc), and this own Court’s reasoning in Carrington Mortgage

20

Servs., LLC v. Tapestry at Town Ctr. Homeowners Association, 381 F. Supp. 3d 1289, 1298–1299

21

(D. Nev. 2019).

22
23

BANA sent through Miles Bauer a May 7, 2012 letter offering to pay the superpriority

24

amount. The HOA’s agent, AMS, sent a statement of account and demanded payment of the entire

25

amount due. Miles Bauer sent a May 2, 2012 letter enclosing a $506.25 check in a good faith effort

26
27

to tender the nine-month superpriority lien amount. This check represented an amount in excess

28

-5-

1

of the superpriority portion of the lien on the property. This check was rejected and returned. This

2

evidence leaves no genuine dispute as to tender.

3
4

SFR’s objections to the evidence raise no more than metaphysical doubt as to whether or

5

not attempted tender occurred. SFR’s specific arguments about the admissibility of the Miles

6

Bauer affidavit and impermissible conditions in the letter accompanying the check have been

7

previously addressed and rejected by this Court in Carrington, 381 F. Supp. 3d at 1298, and more

8
9
10

recently in Bank of New York Mellon v. Willow Creek Community Association, No. 2:16-cv00717-RFB-BNW, 2019 WL4677009, at *4– 5 (D. Nev. Sept. 25, 2019) .

11

Although the Court finds that Christiana Trust prevails on its quiet title claim, the Court

12
13

rejects the remainder of Christiana Trust’s arguments. The Ninth Circuit has confirmed that NRS

14

Chapter 116 is not facially unconstitutional because of its opt-in notice requirement in Bank of

15

America, N.A. v. Arlington West Twilight Homeowners Association, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir.

16

2019). The Court also dismisses the negligence, negligence per se, misrepresentation, breach of

17

contract, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contract and breach of implied covenant of

18
19

good faith and fair dealing claims, incorporating by reference its reasoning in Deutsche Bank v.

20

Edward Kielty Trust, No. 2:17-cv-01759-RFB-PAL, 2019 WL 1442183 at * 9–10 (D. Nev. Mar.

21

31, 2019).

22
CONCLUSION
23
24
25
26

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Christiana Trust’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 118) is granted as to the quiet title claim only. The Court quiets title and declares that SFR
acquired the property subject to Christiana’s deed of trust.

27
28

///

-6-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Cornerstone Homeowners Association’s

2

Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 119) and Defendant Terra West Collections Group’s

3

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 120) are granted consistent with the findings of

4
5
6

fact and conclusions of law in this opinion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the notices of lis pendens in this case, (ECF Nos. 3

7

and 21) are expunged.

8

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the case.

9

DATED: January 30, 2020.

10
11
__________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-7-