Bank of America, N.A. v. Desert Linn Owners' Association, et al

Filing 50

ORDER Granting Defendant Saticoy's 42 Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff's 44 Motion for Summary Judgment. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/27/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., 8 Plaintiff(s), 9 10 11 Case No. 2:16-CV-609 JCM (NJK) ORDER v. DESERT LINN OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendant(s). 12 13 Presently before the court is defendant Saticoy Bay LLC Series 1547 Frisco Peak’s 14 15 16 (“Saticoy”) motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 42). Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) filed a response (ECF No. 46), to which Saticoy replied (ECF No. 48). Also before the court is BANA’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 44). Saticoy 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge filed a response (ECF No. 47), to which BANA replied (ECF No. 49). I. Facts This case involves a dispute over real property located at 1547 Frisco Peak Dr., # 215, Henderson, NV 89014 (the “property”). On October 23, 2009, Bess Bernard obtained a loan in the amount of $73,641.00 to purchase the property, which was secured by a deed of trust recorded on October 27, 2009. (ECF No. 1 at 4). On December 6, 2012, defendant Nevada Association Services, Inc. (“NAS”), acting on behalf of defendant Desert Linn Condominiums (the “HOA”), recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $2,052.58. (ECF No. 1 at 4). On March 27, 2013, NAS recorded a notice of default and election to sell to satisfy the delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $3,339.32. (ECF No. 1 at 4). 1 On May 20, 2013, BANA requested a ledger from the HOA/NAS identifying the 2 superpriority amount allegedly owed to the HOA. (ECF No. 1 at 5). The HOA/NAS allegedly 3 refused to provide a ledger. (ECF No. 1 at 5). BANA calculated the superpriority amount to be 4 $1,170.00 and tendered that amount to NAS on June 13, 2013, which NAS allegedly refused. (ECF 5 No. 1 at 6). 6 On October 22, 2013, NAS recorded a notice of trustee’s sale, stating an amount due of 7 $5,536.20.1 (ECF No. 42-5). On November 15, 2013, Saticoy purchased the property at the 8 foreclosure sale for $11,200.00. (ECF No. 1 at 6). A trustee’s deed upon sale in favor of Saticoy 9 was recorded on November 22, 2013. (ECF No. 1 at 6). The deed of trust was assigned to BANA via an assignment of deed of trust recorded on 10 11 December 30, 2015. (ECF No. 1 at 4). 12 On March 18, 2016, BANA filed the underlying complaint, alleging four causes of action: 13 (1) quiet title/declaratory judgment against all defendants; (2) breach of NRS 116.1113 against 14 NAS and the HOA; (3) wrongful foreclosure against NAS and the HOA; and (4) injunctive relief 15 against Saticoy. (ECF No. 1). On April 8, 2016, Saticoy filed an answer and counterclaim against BANA for quiet title 16 17 and declaratory relief. (ECF No. 9). In the instant motions, Saticoy and BANA move for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 42, 18 19 44). The court will address each as it sees fit. 20 II. Legal Standard 21 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow summary judgment when the pleadings, 22 depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, 23 show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a 24 judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A principal purpose of summary judgment is 25 “to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 26 323–24 (1986). 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge BANA alleges that no notice of trustee’s sale was ever recorded (ECF No. 1 at 4); however, the record shows otherwise (see ECF No. 42-5). 1 -2- 1 For purposes of summary judgment, disputed factual issues should be construed in favor 2 of the non-moving party. Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990). However, to be 3 entitled to a denial of summary judgment, the nonmoving party must “set forth specific facts 4 showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. 5 In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burden-shifting analysis. The moving 6 party must first satisfy its initial burden. “When the party moving for summary judgment would 7 bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a 8 directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the moving party has 9 the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue material to 10 its case.” C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) 11 (citations omitted). 12 By contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, 13 the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an essential 14 element of the non-moving party’s case; or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed 15 to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party’s case on which that 16 party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323–24. If the moving 17 party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and the court need not 18 consider the nonmoving party’s evidence. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159– 19 60 (1970). 20 If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party 21 to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith 22 Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the 23 opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient 24 that “the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing 25 versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 26 631 (9th Cir. 1987). 27 In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by relying solely on 28 conclusory allegations that are unsupported by factual data. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -3- 1 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the opposition must go beyond the assertions and allegations of the 2 pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing competent evidence that shows a genuine issue 3 for trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. 4 At summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the 5 truth, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 6 Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The evidence of the nonmovant is “to be believed, and all 7 justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255. But if the evidence of the 8 nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be 9 granted. See id. at 249–50. 10 III. Discussion 11 As an initial matter, the court dismisses, without prejudice, claims (2) through (4) of 12 BANA’s complaint. Claims (2) and (3) are dismissed without prejudice for failure to mediate 13 pursuant to NRS 38.330. See, e.g., Nev. Rev. Stat. § 38.330(1); McKnight Family, L.L.P. v. Adept 14 Mgmt., 310 P.3d 555 (Nev. 2013). Count (4) is dismissed without prejudice because the court 15 follows the well-settled rule in that a claim for “injunctive relief” standing alone is not a cause of 16 action. See, e.g., In re Wal–Mart Wage & Hour Emp’t Practices Litig., 490 F. Supp. 2d 1091, 17 1130 (D. Nev. 2007); Tillman v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., No. 2:12-CV-346 JCM RJJ, 2012 WL 18 1279939, at *3 (D. Nev. Apr. 13, 2012) (finding that “injunctive relief is a remedy, not an 19 independent cause of action”); Jensen v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 702 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 1201 20 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“A request for injunctive relief by itself does not state a cause of action.”). 21 A. Motions for Summary Judgment2 22 Under Nevada law, “[a]n action may be brought by any person against another who claims 23 an estate or interest in real property, adverse to the person bringing the action for the purpose of 24 determining such adverse claim.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.010. “A plea to quiet title does not require 25 2 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge The court takes judicial notice of the following recorded documents: first deed of trust (ECF No. 44-1); notice of delinquent assessment (ECF No. 42-3); notice of default and election to sell (ECF No. 42-4); notice of trustee’s sale (ECF No. 42-5); and trustee’s deed upon sale (ECF No. 42-2). See, e.g., United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that a court may take judicial notice of public records if the facts noticed are not subject to reasonable dispute); Intri-Plex Tech., Inv. v. Crest Grp., Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). -4- 1 any particular elements, but each party must plead and prove his or her own claim to the property 2 in question and a plaintiff’s right to relief therefore depends on superiority of title.” Chapman v. 3 Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 302 P.3d 1103, 1106 (Nev. 2013) (citations and internal quotation 4 marks omitted). Therefore, for plaintiff to succeed on its quiet title action, it needs to show that 5 its claim to the property is superior to all others. See also Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 6 918 P.2d 314, 318 (Nev. 1996) (“In a quiet title action, the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff 7 to prove good title in himself.”). 1. Deed Recitals3 8 9 Section 116.3116(1) of the Nevada Revised Statutes gives an HOA a lien on its 10 homeowners’ residences for unpaid assessments and fines; moreover, NRS 116.3116(2) gives 11 priority to that HOA lien over all other liens and encumbrances with limited exceptions—such as 12 “[a] first security interest on the unit recorded before the date on which the assessment sought to 13 be enforced became delinquent.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.3116(2)(b). 14 The statute then carves out a partial exception to subparagraph (2)(b)’s exception for first 15 security interests. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.3116(2). In SFR Investment Pool 1 v. U.S. Bank, the 16 Nevada Supreme Court provided the following explanation: 17 18 19 20 As to first deeds of trust, NRS 116.3116(2) thus splits an HOA lien into two pieces, a superpriority piece and a subpriority piece. The superpriority piece, consisting of the last nine months of unpaid HOA dues and maintenance and nuisance-abatement charges, is “prior to” a first deed of trust. The subpriority piece, consisting of all other HOA fees or assessments, is subordinate to a first deed of trust. 334 P.3d 408, 411 (Nev. 2014) (“SFR Investments”). 21 Chapter 116 of the Nevada Revised Statutes permits an HOA to enforce its superpriority 22 lien by nonjudicial foreclosure sale. Id. at 415. Thus, “NRS 116.3116(2) provides an HOA a true 23 superpriority lien, proper foreclosure of which will extinguish a first deed of trust.” Id. at 419; see 24 also Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.31162(1) (providing that “the association may foreclose its lien by sale” 25 upon compliance with the statutory notice and timing rules). 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge 3 The 2015 Legislature revised Chapter 116 substantially. 2015 Nev. Stat., ch. 266. Except where otherwise indicated, the references in this order to statutes codified in NRS Chapter 116 are to the version of the statutes in effect in 2012–13, when the events giving rise to this litigation occurred. -5- 1 2 3 4 5 Subsection (1) of NRS 116.31166 provides that the recitals in a deed made pursuant to NRS 116.31164 of the following are conclusive proof of the matters recited: (a) Default, the mailing of the notice of delinquent assessment, and the recording of the notice of default and election to sell; (b) The elapsing of the 90 days; and (c) The giving of notice of sale[.] Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.31166(1)(a)–(c).4 “The ‘conclusive’ recitals concern default, notice, and 6 publication of the [notice of sale], all statutory prerequisites to a valid HOA lien foreclosure sale 7 as stated in NRS 116.31162 through NRS 116.31164, the sections that immediately precede and 8 give context to NRS 116.31166.” Shadow Wood Homeowners Assoc. v. N.Y. Cmty. Bancorp., Inc., 9 10 366 P.3d 1105 (Nev. 2016) (“Shadow Wood”). Nevertheless, courts retain the equitable authority to consider quiet title actions when a HOA’s foreclosure deed contains statutorily conclusive 11 recitals. See id. at 1112. 12 Here, Saticoy has provided the recorded trustee’s deed upon sale, the recorded notice of 13 delinquent assessment, the recorded notice of default and election to sell, and the recorded notice 14 of trustee’s sale. (ECF No. 42). Pursuant to NRS 116.31166, these recitals in the recorded 15 foreclosure deed are conclusive to the extent that they implicate compliance with NRS 116.31162 16 through NRS 116.31164, which provide the statutory prerequisites of a valid foreclosure. See id. 17 at 1112 (“[T]he recitals made conclusive by operation of NRS 116.31166 implicate compliance 18 only with the statutory prerequisites to foreclosure.”). Therefore, pursuant to NRS 116.31166 and 19 20 4 The statute further provides as follows: 21 22 23 24 2. Such a deed containing those recitals is conclusive against the unit's former owner, his or her heirs and assigns, and all other persons. The receipt for the purchase money contained in such a deed is sufficient to discharge the purchaser from obligation to see to the proper application of the purchase money. 25 26 27 3. The sale of a unit pursuant to NRS 116.31162, 116.31163 and 116.31164 vests in the purchaser the title of the unit’s owner without equity or right of redemption. 28 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.31166(2)–(3). James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -6- 1 the recorded foreclosure deed, the foreclosure sale is valid to the extent that it complied with NRS 2 116.31162 through NRS 116.31164. 3 Importantly, while NRS 116.3116 accords certain deed recitals conclusive effect—e.g., 4 default, notice, and publication of the notice of sale—it does not conclusively, as a matter of law, 5 entitle Saticoy to success on its quiet title claim. See Shadow Wood, 366 P.3d at 1112 (rejecting 6 contention that NRS 116.31166 defeats, as a matter of law, actions to quiet title). Thus, the 7 question remains whether BANA has demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify setting aside the 8 foreclosure sale. See id. “When sitting in equity . . . courts must consider the entirety of the 9 circumstances that bear upon the equities. This includes considering the status and actions of all 10 parties involved, including whether an innocent party may be harmed by granting the desired 11 relief.” Id. 1. Rejected Tender 12 13 BANA argues that its tender of its computation of the superpriority amount extinguished 14 the HOA’s superpriority lien prior to the foreclosure sale. (ECF No. 44 at 4–8). BANA thus 15 maintains that Saticoy took title to the property subject to BANA’s deed of trust. (ECF No. 44 at 16 4–8). 17 The court disagrees. BANA did not tender the amount sent forth in the notice of default, 18 which stated an amount due of $3,339.32. Rather, BANA tendered a lesser amount, the amount it 19 calculated to be sufficient—specifically, $1,170.00. 20 Under NRS 116.31166(1), the holder of a first deed of trust may pay off the superpriority 21 portion of an HOA lien to prevent the foreclosure sale from extinguishing that security interest. 22 See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.31166(1); see also SFR Investments, 334 P.3d at 414 (“But as a junior 23 lienholder, U.S. Bank could have paid off the SHHOA lien to avert loss of its security . . . .”); see 24 also, e.g., 7912 Limbwood Ct. Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., 979 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1149 25 (D. Nev. 2013) (“If junior lienholders want to avoid this result, they readily can preserve their 26 security interests by buying out the senior lienholder’s interest.” (citing Carillo v. Valley Bank of 27 Nev., 734 P.2d 724, 725 (Nev. 1987); Keever v. Nicholas Beers Co., 611 P.2d 1079, 1083 (Nev. 28 1980))). James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -7- 1 The superpriority lien portion, however, consists of “the last nine months of unpaid HOA 2 dues and maintenance and nuisance-abatement charges,” while the subpriority piece consists of 3 “all other HOA fees or assessments.” SFR Investments, 334 P.3d at 411 (emphasis added); see 4 also 7912 Limbwood Ct. Trust, 979 F. Supp. 2d at 1150 (“The superpriority lien consists only of 5 unpaid assessments and certain charges specifically identified in § 116.31162.”). 6 BANA merely presumed, without adequate support, that the amount set forth in the notice 7 of default included more than the superpriority lien portion and that a lesser amount based on 8 BANA’s own calculations would be sufficient to preserve its interest in the property. See 9 generally, e.g., Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.080 (allowing trustee’s sale under a deed of trust only when 10 a subordinate interest has failed to make good the deficiency in performance or payment for 35 11 days); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.430 (barring judicially ordered foreclosure sale if the deficiency is 12 made good at least 5 days prior to sale). 13 The notice of default recorded March 27, 2013, set forth an amount due of $3,339.32. (ECF 14 No. 1 at 4). Rather than tendering the $3,339.32 due so as to preserve its interest in the property 15 and then later seeking a refund of any difference, BANA elected to pay a lesser amount ($1,170.00) 16 based on its unwarranted assumption that the amount stated in the notice included more than what 17 was due. See SFR Investments, 334 P.3d at 418 (noting that the deed of trust holder can pay the 18 entire lien amount and then sue for a refund). Had BANA paid the amount set forth in the notice 19 of default ($3,339.32), the HOA’s interest would have been subordinate to the first deed of trust. 20 See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.31166(1). 21 After failing to use the legal remedies available to BANA to prevent the property from 22 being sold to a third party—for example, seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary 23 injunction and filling a lis pendens on the property (see Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 14.010, 40.060)— 24 BANA now seeks to profit from its own failure to follow the rules set forth in the statutes. See 25 generally, e.g., Barkley’s Appeal. Bentley’s Estate, 2 Monag. 274, 277 (Pa. 1888) (“In the case 26 before us, we can see no way of giving the petitioner the equitable relief she asks without doing 27 great injustice to other innocent parties who would not have been in a position to be injured by 28 such a decree as she asks if she had applied for relief at an earlier day.”); Nussbaumer v. Superior James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -8- 1 Court in & for Yuma Cty., 489 P.2d 843, 846 (Ariz. 1971) (“Where the complaining party has 2 access to all the facts surrounding the questioned transaction and merely makes a mistake as to the 3 legal consequences of his act, equity should normally not interfere, especially where the rights of 4 third parties might be prejudiced thereby.”). 5 In presuming that an “offer” to pay constitutes a “tender” of payment, BANA cites to Stone 6 Hollow Ave. Trust v. Bank of Am., Nat’l Ass’n, 382 P.3d 911 (Nev. 2016), for the proposition that 7 an offer to pay the superpriority amount prior to the foreclosure sale preserves the lender’s deed 8 of trust. (ECF No. 44 at 4–8). 9 The Stone Hollow court, however, made no such holding. To the contrary, the Stone 10 Hollow court held that “[w]hen rejection of a tender is unjustified, the tender is effective to 11 discharge the lien.” 382 P.3d at 911. BANA has not set forth any evidence as to a tender in a 12 sufficient amount. 13 Based on the foregoing, BANA has failed to sufficiently establish that it tendered a 14 sufficient amount prior to the foreclosure sale so as to render Saticoy’s title subject to BANA’s 15 deed of trust. 16 2. Due Process 17 BANA argues that the HOA lien statute is facially unconstitutional because it does not 18 mandate notice to deed of trust beneficiaries. (ECF No. 44 at 8–12). BANA further contends that 19 any factual issues concerning actual notice is irrelevant pursuant to Bourne Valley Court Trust v. 20 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Bourne Valley”). (ECF No. 44 at 8–12). 21 The Ninth Circuit held that NRS 116.3116’s “opt-in” notice scheme, which required a 22 HOA to alert a mortgage lender that it intended to foreclose only if the lender had affirmatively 23 requested notice, facially violated mortgage lenders’ constitutional due process rights. Bourne 24 Valley, 832 F.3d at 1157–58. The facially unconstitutional provision, as identified in Bourne 25 Valley, exists in NRS 116.31163(2). See id. at 1158. At issue is the “opt-in” provision that 26 unconstitutionally shifts the notice burden to holders of the property interest at risk. See id. 27 To state a procedural due process claim, a claimant must allege “(1) a deprivation of a 28 constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and (2) a denial of adequate procedural James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -9- 1 protections.” Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 982 (9th Cir. 2 1998). 3 BANA has failed to show that it was entitled to any notice as it was not assigned the deed 4 of trust until after the foreclosure sale took place. Specifically, the foreclosure sale occurred on 5 November 15, 2013, and the deed of trust was assigned to BANA via assignment of deed of trust 6 recorded on December 30, 2015. Accordingly, BANA’s due process argument fails as a matter of 7 law. 8 3. Supremacy Clause 9 BANA argues that the HOA lien statute cannot interfere with the federal mortgage 10 insurance program or extinguish mortgage interests insured by the FHA. (ECF No. 44 at 12–18). 11 The single-family mortgage insurance program allows FHA to insure private loans, 12 expanding the availability of mortgages to low-income individuals wishing to purchase homes. 13 See Sec’y of Hous. & Urban Dev. v. Sky Meadow Ass’n, 117 F. Supp. 2d 970, 980–81 (C.D. Cal. 14 2000) (discussing program); W Wash. & Sandhill Homeowners Ass’n v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 15 2:13-cv-01845-GMN-GWF, 2014 WL 4798565, at *1 n.2 (D. Nev. Sept. 25, 2014) (same). If a 16 borrower under this program defaults, the lender may foreclose on the property, convey title to 17 HUD, and submit an insurance claim. 24 C.F.R. § 203.355. HUD’s property disposition program 18 generates funds to finance the program. See 24 C.F.R. § 291.1. 19 Allowing an HOA foreclosure to wipe out a first deed of trust on a federally-insured 20 property thus interferes with the purposes of the FHA insurance program. Specifically, it hinders 21 HUD’s ability to recoup funds from insured properties. As this court previously stated in 22 SaticoyBayLLC, Series 7342 Tanglewood Park v. SRMOF II 2012-1 Trust, the court reads the 23 foregoing precedent to indicate that a homeowners’ association foreclosure sale under NRS 24 116.3116 may not extinguish a federally-insured loan. No. 2:13–CV–1199 JCM (VCF), 2015 WL 25 1990076, at *4 (D. Nev. Apr. 30, 2015). 26 However, the instant case is distinguishable from these cases in that, here, FHA is not a 27 named party. Neither the complaint nor the counterclaim seeks to quiet title against FHA. Thus, 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge - 10 - 1 this argument provides no support for BANA as the outcome of the instant case has no bearing on 2 FHA’s ability to quiet title. 4. Retroactivity 3 BANA contends that SFR Investments should not be applied retroactively to extinguish the 4 5 first deed of trust. (ECF No. 44 at 18–19). 6 The Nevada Supreme Court has since applied the SFR Investments holding in numerous 7 cases that challenged pre-SFR Investments foreclosure sales. See, e.g., Centeno v. Mortg. Elec. 8 Registration Sys., Inc., No. 64998, 2016 WL 3486378, at *2 (Nev. June 23, 2016); LN Mgmt. LLC 9 Series 8301 Boseck 228 v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 64495, 2016 WL 1109295, at *1 (Nev. 10 Mar. 18, 2016) (reversing 2013 dismissal of quiet-title action that concluded contrary to SFR 11 Investments, reasoning that “the district court’s decision was based on an erroneous interpretation 12 of the controlling law”); Mackensie Family, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 65696, 2016 WL 13 315326, at *1 (Nev. Jan. 22, 2016) (reversing and remanding because “[t]he district court’s 14 conclusion of law contradicts our holding in SFR Investments Pool 1 v. U.S. Bank”). Thus, SFR 15 Investments applies to this case. 16 IV. Conclusion 17 In light of the aforementioned, the court finds that BANA has failed to raise a genuine 18 dispute so as to preclude summary judgment in favor of Saticoy on its quiet title claim. Nor has 19 BANA established that it is entitled to summary judgment in its favor against Saticoy, the HOA, 20 or NAS. BANA did not tender the amount provided in the notice of default, as statute and the 21 notice itself instructed, and did not meet its burden to show that no genuine issues of material fact 22 existed regarding the proper amount of the HOA’s lien or constitutionally sufficient notice. 23 Accordingly, 24 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Saticoy’s motion for 25 summary judgment (ECF No. 42) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED consistent with the 26 foregoing. 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BANA’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 44) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. - 11 - 1 The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 2 DATED April 27, 2017. 3 4 __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 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 - 12 -

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?