Bank of America, N.A. v. Mesa Verde Homeowners Association et al
Filing
129
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 116 BANA's motion for reconsideration be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 126 BANA's motion to file supplemental authorities be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/15/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,
8
Plaintiff(s),
9
10
11
Case No. 2:16-CV-498 JCM (NJK)
ORDER
v.
MESA VERDE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendant(s).
12
13
Presently before the court is plaintiff/counter defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s
14
15
16
17
(“BANA”) motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 116). Defendants Mesa Verde Homeowners’
Association (“Mesa Verde”) and SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) filed separate responses
(ECF Nos. 121, 123), to which BANA replied (ECF No. 125).
Also before the court is BANA’s motion to file supplemental authorities in support of its
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 126). Mesa Verde and SFR filed a response. (ECF Nos.
127, 128). BANA did not file a reply and the time to do so has passed.
I.
Facts
This action arises from a dispute over real property located at 4129 Thomas Patrick
Avenue, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89032 (“the property”). (ECF No. 1).
George and Juanita Bennett (“the Bennetts”) purchased the property on May 27, 2008.
(ECF No. 89-1). The Bennetts financed the purchase with a loan in the amount of $215,761.00
from CTX Mortgage Company (“CTX Mortgage”). Id. CTX Mortgage secured the loan with a
deed of trust, which names CTX Mortgage as the lender, Timothy Bartosh or William Naryka as
the trustee, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as the beneficiary as
1
nominee for the lender and lender’s successors and assigns. Id. On November 3, 2011, BANA
2
acquired all beneficial interest in the deed of trust via an assignment, which BANA recorded with
3
the Clark County recorder’s office. (ECF No. 89-3).
4
On May 9, 2010, Mesa Verde, through its agent defendant Alessi & Koenig, LLC
5
(“A&K”), recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien (“the lien”) against the property for the
6
Bennetts’ failure to pay Mesa Verde in the amount of $920.00. (ECF No. 89-4). On August 5,
7
2010, Mesa Verde recorded a notice of default and election to sell pursuant to the lien, stating that
8
the amount due was $5,380.00 as of August 3, 2010. (ECF No. 89-5).
9
In an attempt to exercise its right of redemption, BANA requested from Mesa Verde the
10
superpriority amount of the lien. (ECF No. 89-7). On November 5, 2012, Mesa Verde provided
11
a payoff ledger of the Bennetts total amount due from October 2009 to December 2012. Id. The
12
payoff ledger shows an outstanding balance of $5,715.00 but does not state what portion of the
13
balance constitutes the superpriority portion of the lien. Id. The ledger also does not include
14
charges for maintenance and nuisance abatement. Id. The ledger does state, however, that Mesa
15
Verde’s monthly assessments against the property were $55.00. Id.
16
BANA used Mesa Verde’s ledger to calculate the superpriority amount as $495.00, the
17
sum of nine months of common assessments. Id. On November 29, 2012, BANA sent a letter and
18
a check in the amount of $1,575.00 to Mesa Verde. Id. The letter explained that the check was
19
the sum of nine of common assessment ($495.00) and what BANA determined to be reasonable
20
collection costs ($1,080.00). Id. Mesa Verde rejected the payment without explanation. Id.
21
On June 3, 2013, Mesa Verde recorded a notice of foreclosure sale against the property.
22
(ECF No. 92-7). On August 12, 2013, Mesa Verde sold the property in a nonjudicial foreclosure
23
sale to SFR in exchange for $20,000.00. (89-8). On August 13, 2013, SFR recorded the deed of
24
foreclosure with the Clark County recorder’s office. Id.
25
On March 8, 2016, BANA filed a complaint alleging four causes of action: (1) quiet
26
title/declaratory relief against all defendants; (2) breach of NRS 116.1113 against Mesa Verde and
27
A&K; (3) wrongful foreclosure against Mesa Verde and A&K; and (4) injunctive relief against
28
SFR. (ECF No. 1). On June 16, 2018, the court granted Mesa Verde and SFR’s motions for
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-2-
1
summary judgment (ECF Nos. 92, 94), holding in part that BANA’s attempted tender was
2
insufficient to extinguish the superpriority lien. (ECF No. 111).
3
On September 13, 2018, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a ruling clarifying how courts
4
should apply NRS 116.3116 et seq. (“Chapter 116”)—the statute that Mesa Verde relied on when
5
it foreclosed on the property. Bank of America, N.A. v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 427 P.3d 113 (Nev.
6
2018) (“Bank of America”). In light of this intervening change in controlling law, the court now
7
reconsiders its prior order pursuant to BANA’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 116).
8
II.
Legal Standard
9
A motion for reconsideration “should not be granted, absent highly unusual
10
circumstances.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880
11
(9th Cir. 2009). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly
12
discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3)
13
if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d
14
1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
15
Rule 59(e) “permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order,” however
16
“the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and
17
conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003)
18
(internal quotations omitted). A motion for reconsideration is also an improper vehicle “to raise
19
arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised
20
earlier in litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 571 F.3d at 880.
21
III.
Discussion
22
As a preliminary matter, the court will grant BANA motion to file supplemental authorities
23
(ECF No. 126) pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(g) as the authorities include new mandatory authority
24
on the application of Chapter 116.
25
BANA argues that, in light of the Nevada Supreme Court’s recent holding in Bank of
26
America, BANA tendered the superpriority portion of the lien and prevented the foreclosure sale
27
from extinguishing the deed of trust. (ECF Nos. 116, 126). The court agrees.
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-3-
1
Under NRS 116.31166(1), the holder of a first deed of trust may pay off the superpriority
2
portion of an HOA lien to prevent the foreclosure sale from extinguishing the deed of trust. See
3
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.31166(1); see also SFR Investments, 334 P.3d at 414 (“But as a junior
4
lienholder, BOA could have paid off the SHHOA lien to avert loss of its security . . .”). The
5
superpriority portion of the lien consists of “the last nine months of unpaid HOA dues and
6
maintenance and nuisance-abatement charges,” while the subpriority piece consists of “all other
7
HOA fees or assessments.”
8
Homeowners Association v. Ikon Holdings, LLC, 373 P.3d 66 (Nev. 2016).
SFR Investments, 334 P.3d at 411; Horizons at Seven Hills
9
In Bank of America, the Nevada Supreme Court held that a foreclosure sale did not
10
extinguish a first deed of trust when Bank of America, the holder of the deed of trust, used the
11
HOA’s representations to calculate and tender the sum of nine months of delinquent assessments.
12
Bank of America, N.A. v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 427 P.3d 113, 121 (Nev. 2018). Although the
13
superpriority portion of an HOA lien typically includes maintenance and nuisance abatement
14
charges, the court held that “Bank of America tendered the correct amount to satisfy the
15
superpriority portion of the lien . . . [because] the HOA did not indicate that the property had any
16
charges for maintenance or nuisance abatement.” Id. at 118.
17
The Nevada Supreme Court’s holding in Bank of America controls the court’s analysis in
18
this case. Like Bank of America, where Bank of America relied on the HOA’s representations to
19
calculate nine months of assessments, BANA relied on Mesa Verde’s ledger to calculate nine
20
months of assessments. See id. at 118; (ECF No. 89-7). Further, Mesa Verde, like the HOA in
21
Bank of America, did not indicate that the property had any charges for maintenance or nuisance
22
abatement. See Bank of America, 427 P.3d at 118; (ECF No. 89-7). Thus, when BANA sent a
23
check for nine months of assessments and reasonable collection costs to Mesa Verde, it properly
24
tendered the superpriority portion of the lien. Therefore, the nonjudicial foreclosure sale did not
25
extinguish the deed of trust. See id. at 121 (“It follows that after a valid tender of the superpriority
26
portion of an HOA lien, a foreclosure sale . . . cannot extinguish the first deed of trust”).
27
...
28
...
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-4-
1
IV.
Conclusion
2
Accordingly,
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that BANA’s motion for
4
5
6
reconsideration (ECF No. 116) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BANA’s motion to file supplemental authorities (ECF
No. 126) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
7
The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
8
DATED November 15, 2018.
9
10
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-5-
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?