Bank of America, N.A. v. Travata and Montage at Summerlin Centre Homeowners Association et al
Filing
84
ORDER denying 35 Motion for Summary Judgment, granting 36 Motion for Summary Judgment, denying 37 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/6/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
8
9
10
11
Case No. 2:16-CV-345 JCM (GWF)
Plaintiff(s),
ORDER
v.
TRAVATA AND MONTAGE AT
SUMMERLIN CENTRE, et al.,
Defendant(s).
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
On February 4, 2020, the Ninth Circuit reversed this court’s decision granting summary
judgment in favor of Travata and Montage at Summerlin Centre Homeowners’ Association
(“Travata”), Nevada Association Services, Inc. (“NAS”), Underwood Partners, LLC
(“Underwood”), and NV Eagles, LLC (“NV Eagles”) (collectively “defendants”). (ECF No. 83).
This court found that plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.’s (“BANA”) tender of $594—which
was the correct calculation of nine months of unpaid assessments—did not discharge the
superpriority portion of Travata’s lien. (ECF No. 73). This court applied the same reasoning as it
had in other cases: tendering less than the full amount due was insufficient to protect the bank’s
deed of trust, especially when the tendered amount did not include any amount for maintenance or
nuisance abatement. Id.
The Ninth Circuit reversed, noting that “[u]nder Nevada law, made clear after the decision
by the district court, the superpriority portion of a homeowners’ association lien under Nev. Rev.
Stat. § 116.3116 includes only charges for maintenance or nuisance abatement and nine months’
worth of delinquent assessments.” (ECF No. 83 at 3). The Ninth Circuit further held that, pursuant
to the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Bank of Am., N.A. v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 427 P.3d
1
113, 117–18 (Nev. 2018), “[a] party offering tender may insist that acceptance constitutes payment
2
in full of its obligations, and a homeowners’ association does not act in good faith when it rejects
3
tender of the superpriority portion of a lien and demands payment of the entire lien.” (ECF No.
4
83 at 3).
5
6
As a result, the court now quiets title in BANA’s favor, consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s
memorandum disposition.
7
Accordingly,
8
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that BANA’s motion for
9
10
11
12
13
summary judgment (ECF No. 36) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Travata’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 37)
be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Eagles’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 35)
be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
14
The clerk is instructed to enter judgment and close the case accordingly.
15
DATED February 6, 2020.
16
17
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?