Bank of America, N.A. v. Hidden Canyon Owners Association et al

Filing 71

ORDER denying 38 Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC's Motion to Dismiss as the Court finds that the claims are not time-barred; FURTHER ORDERED that 42 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED without prejudic e to renewing the motion; FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. shall submit supplemental briefing no longer than ten pages excluding exhibits on whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff Ban k of America has until May 1, 2020 to file its "Supplemental Partial Summary Judgment" motion. Any opposition will be due May 15, 2020 and any reply will be due by May 22, 2020. FHFA's 45 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae is granted nunc pro tunc. Defendant's 48 Motion for Summary Judgment re Defendant Hidden Canyon Owners Association is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 3/31/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
***

4
5
6

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.;
Plaintiffs,

7
8
9
10

Case No. 2:16-cv-02764-RFB-EJY
ORDER

v.
HIDDEN CANYON OWNERS
ASSOCIATION; SFR INVESTMENTS
POOL 1, LLC; ABSOLUTE COLLECTION
SERVICES, LLC

11

Defendants.

12
13

I.

INTRODUCTION

14
15

Before the Court are Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss,

16

Plaintiff Bank of America’s (“BANA”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Movant Federal

17

Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA’s) Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, Defendant

18

Hidden Canyon Owners Association’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and Defendant SFR

19

Investments Pool 1, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 38, 42, 45, 48, 49. For the

20
21

following reasons, the Court denies the motion to dismiss, grants the FHFA’s motion for leave to

22

file an amicus curiae brief, denies the HOA’s motion for summary judgment and orders

23

supplementary briefing for the remaining summary judgment motions.

24
25

II.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

BANA sued Defendants on December 2, 2016, seeking declaratory relief from this Court

26
27
28

that a nonjudicial foreclosure sale conducted in 2013 under Chapter 116 of the Nevada Revised
Statutes (“NRS”) did not extinguish their interest in a Las Vegas property. ECF No. 1. To obtain

1

the relief, BANA asserted the following claims in the complaint: (1) declaratory relief under 12

2

U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) as against Defendant SFR; (2) quiet title under 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) as

3

against SFR; (3) declaratory relief under the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the United

4
5

States Constitution against all Defendants; (4) quiet title under the Fifth and the Fourteenth

6

Amendments to the United States Constitution against Defendant; (5) declaratory judgment against

7

all Defendants; (6) breach of NRS 116.1113 against Defendant Hidden Canyon and Absolute; (7)

8

wrongful foreclosure against Defendant Hidden Canyon and Absolute; and (8) injunctive relief

9

against SFR. Id. Defendant Absolute Collection Services, LLC answered its complaint on

10
11

December 27, 2016. ECF No. 12. On March 24, 2017, the Court stayed the case pending resolution

12

of pertinent Ninth Circuit and Nevada Supreme Court cases. ECF No. 20. The Court lifted the stay

13

on April 10, 2019. ECF No. 34. SFR filed its motion to dismiss on May 29, 2019. ECF No. 38.

14

The motion was fully briefed. ECF Nos. 40, 41. BANA moved for summary judgment on June 21,

15

2019. ECF No. 42. The motion was fully briefed. ECF Nos. The Federal Housing Finance Agency

16
17

moved for leave to file an amicus on June 28, 2019. ECF No. 45. Defendant Hidden Canyon

18

Owners Association moved for summary judgment on July 16, 2019. ECF No. 48. A response and

19

reply were filed. ECF No. 52, 58. SFR also moved for summary judgment on July 16, 2019. This

20

motion was also fully briefed. ECF Nos. 53, 56.

21
22

III.

23

The Court makes the following findings of undisputed and disputed facts. 1

24

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

a. Undisputed facts

25

This matter concerns a nonjudicial foreclosure on a property (the “Property”) located at

26
27
28

1

The Court takes judicial notice of the publicly recorded documents related to the deed of trust and the foreclosure
sale as well as Fannie Mae’s Single-Family Servicing Guide. Fed. R. Evid. 201 (b), (d); Berezovsky v. Moniz, 869
F.3d 923, 932–33 (9th Cir. 2017) (judicially noticing the substantially similar Freddie Mac Guide); Lee v. City of
Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 690 (9th Cir. 2001) (permitting judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record).

-2-

1

1526 Woodward Heights Way, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89032. The Property sits in a community

2

governed by the Hidden Canyon Owners Association (the “HOA”). The HOA requires its

3

community members to pay HOA dues.

4
5

Nonparties David and Janet Anderson borrowed funds from Countrywide Home Loans,

6

Inc. to purchase the Property in July 2004. To obtain the loan, the Andersons executed a

7

promissory note and a corresponding deed of trust to secure repayment of the note. The deed of

8

trust, which lists the Andersons as the borrowers and Countrywide Home Loans as the lender was

9

recorded on July 26, 2004. On November 13, 2009, the Mortgage Electronic Registration Service

10
11
12

(“MERS”) recorded an assignment of the deed of trust to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP. That
same year, BAC Home Loans Servicing merged with BANA.

13

The Andersons fell behind on HOA payments. From July 2011 through October 2012, the

14

HOA, through its agent, recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien, followed by a notice of

15

default and election to sell and two notices of foreclosure sale. On January 15, 2013, the HOA held

16
17
18

a foreclosure sale on the Property under NRS Chapter 116. SFR acquired the Property at the
foreclosure sale as recorded in a foreclosure deed on January 17, 2013.

19

However, the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) previously

20

purchased the loan and deed of trust in August 2004. While its interest was never recorded under

21

its name, Fannie Mae continued to maintain its ownership of the note and the deed of trust at the

22
23
24

time of the foreclosure. BANA was the servicer of the loan for Fannie Mae at the time of the
foreclosure sale.

25

The relationship between Fannie Mae and its servicers, is governed by Fannie Mae’s

26

Single-Family Servicing Guide (“the Guide”). The Guide provides that servicers may act as record

27

beneficiaries for deeds of trust owned by Fannie Mae. It also requires that servicers assign the

28

-3-

1

deeds of trust to Fannie Mae on Fannie Mae’s demand. The Guide states:

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

The servicer ordinarily appears in the land records as the mortgagee to
facilitate performance of the servicer's contractual responsibilities,
including (but not limited to) the receipt of legal notices that may
impact Fannie Mae's lien, such as notices of foreclosure, tax, and other
liens. However, Fannie Mae may take any and all action with respect to the
mortgage loan it deems necessary to protect its ... ownership of the mortgage
loan, including recordation of a mortgage assignment, or its legal
equivalent, from the servicer to Fannie Mae or its designee. In the event
that Fannie Mae determines it necessary to record such an instrument, the
servicer must assist Fannie Mae by [ ] preparing and recording any required
documentation, such as mortgage assignments, powers of attorney, or
affidavits; and [by] providing recordation information for the affected
mortgage loans.

11
12

The Guide also allows for a temporary transfer of possession of the note when necessary

13

for servicing activities, including “whenever the servicer, acting in its own name, represents the

14

interests of Fannie Mae in ... legal proceedings.” The temporary transfer is automatic and occurs

15

at the commencement of the servicer's representation of Fannie Mae. The Guide also includes a

16
17

chapter regarding how servicers should manage litigation on behalf of Fannie Mae. But the Guide

18

clarifies that “Fannie Mae is at all times the owner of the mortgage note[.]” Finally, under the

19

Guide, the servicer must “maintain in the individual mortgage loan file all documents and system

20

records that preserve Fannie Mae’s ownership interest in the mortgage loan.”

21

Finally, the Guide “permits the servicer that has Fannie Mae’s [limited power of attorney]

22
23

to execute certain types of legal documents on Fannie Mae’s behalf.” The legal documents include

24

full or partial releases or discharges of a mortgage; requests to a trustee for a full or partial

25

reconveyance or discharge of a deed of trust, modification or extensions of a mortgage or deed of

26

trust; subordination of the lien of a mortgage or deed of trust, conveyances of a property to certain

27

entities; and assignments or endorsements of mortgages, deeds of trust, or promissory notes to

28
certain entities.
-4-

1

In 2008, Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (“HERA”), 12 U.S.C.

2

§ 4511 et seq., which established the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”). HERA gave

3

FHFA the authority to oversee the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

4
5

(collectively, the “Enterprises”). In accordance with its authority, FHFA placed the Enterprises,

6

including Fannie Mae, under its conservatorship in 2008. Neither FHFA nor Fannie Mae consented

7

to the foreclosure extinguishing Fannie Mae’s interest in the Property in this matter.

8
9

b. Disputed Facts
The Court finds there to be no material disputed facts, but does find there to be disputes as

10
11

to the sufficiency of evidence to support certain facts, as discussed in more detail, infra.

12

IV.

13

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

14

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

15

LEGAL STANDARD

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

16
17

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

18

the propriety of summary judgment, the court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light

19

most favorable to the nonmoving party. Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir.

20

2014). If the movant has carried its burden, the non-moving party “must do more than simply

21

show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts…. Where the record taken as

22
23

a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine

24

issue for trial.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (alteration in original) (internal quotation

25

marks omitted). It is improper for the Court to resolve genuine factual disputes or make credibility

26

determinations at the summary judgment stage. Zetwick v. Cty. of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436, 441 (9th

27

Cir. 2017) (citations omitted).

28

-5-

1

V.

DISCUSSION

2
3

In its reply to its own motion for summary judgment, SFR raised the argument for the first

4

time that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. SFR argues that BANA

5

has failed to sufficiently establish that Fannie Mae owned the loan and BANA was its servicer at

6

the time the complaint in this case was filed. Specifically, SFR points to a declaration and

7
8

accompanying printout submitted by BANA that appears to indicate that Fannie Mae sold the loan

9

in June 2015 and repurchased it on March 29, 2017. BANA filed its complaint on December 2,

10

2016. For this reason, SFR argues, BANA did not have standing when it filed its complaint and

11

the Court therefore does not have jurisdiction over this matter.

12

First, the Court notes that the Ninth Circuit has cautioned district courts on considering

13
14

arguments that have only been raised for the first time in the reply brief to a summary judgment

15

motion. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1289 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[I]ssues

16

cannot be raised for the first time in a reply brief.”). However, as SFR’s argument raises questions

17

regarding constitutional standing and the Court’s jurisdiction, and the Court may consider

18

questions of subject matter jurisdiction at any point in proceedings, the Court will order

19
20

supplemental briefin so that BANA can respond to SFR’s untimely argument. See Maya v. Centex

21

Corp., 658 F.3d 1060, 1067 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that “in determining constitutional standing, it

22

is within the trial court’s power to allow or to require the plaintiff to supply, by amendment to the

23

complaint or by affidavits, further particularized allegations of fact deemed supportive of

24

plaintiff’s standing.”).

25
26

Accordingly, the Court will deny BANA and SFR’s motions for summary judgment

27

without prejudice to refiling after it has received supplementary briefing from BANA on the

28

question of subject matter jurisdiction.

-6-

1

In its motion to dismiss and also its motion for summary judgment, SFR also argues that

2

BANA’s claims regarding the Federal Foreclosure Bar are time-barred. In previous decisions, this

3

Court has found that the six-year limitations period under section 4617(j) applies to claims brought

4
5

by Fannie Mae. The Court incorporates by reference its reasoning in those cases. See e.g., Fed.

6

Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Haus, No. 2:17-cv-01756, 2019 WL 4777294, at *1, * 3 – 5 (D. Nev. Sept.

7

30, 2019) (explaining why the six-year provision of 4617(j) applies to Fannie Mae’s claims), and

8

also finds that loan servicers may also invoke the six-year limitations period for the same reasoning

9

articulated in these cases. See id.

10
11

For statute of limitations calculations, the clock begins on the day the cause of action

12

accrued. Clark v. Robison, 944 P.2d 788, 789 (Nev. 1997). A cause of action accrues “when a suit

13

may be maintained thereon.” Id. In this case, the foreclosure sale was on January 16, 2013. BANA

14

filed its complaint on December 2, 2016—three years later. The Court thus finds that BANA’s

15

claims are timely filed.

16
17

Because the Federal Foreclosure Bar could be potentially dispositive of this case, the Court

18

grants the HOA’s motion, as the Court does not find that the HOA violated NRS 116 in its

19

conducting of the foreclosure sale. The Court also does not find that the Bank can prevail on its

20

wrongful foreclosure claim, as the Bank has not established that the borrower did not breach or

21

fail to perform as of the time of the HOA sale. See JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. SFR

22
23

Investments Pool 1, LLC, 200 F.Supp.3d 1141 (D. Nev. 2016) (dismissing a wrongful foreclosure

24

claim because the bank could not show that there was no default at the time of the foreclosure

25

sale). The Court also rejects the Bank’s arguments that the notice requirements of NRS Chapter

26

116 are unconstitutional as the Ninth Circuit has confirmed that they are not. Bank of America,

27

N.A. v. Arlington West Twilight Homeowners Association, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2019).

28

-7-

1

VI.

2

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss

3

CONCLUSION

(ECF No. 38) is DENIED as the Court finds that the claims are not time-barred.

4
5
6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 42) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the motion.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. shall submit

8

supplemental briefing no longer than ten pages excluding exhibits on whether the Court has subject

9

matter jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff Bank of America has until May 1, 2020 to file its

10
11
12
13
14
15

“Supplemental Partial Summary Judgment” motion. Any opposition will be due May 15, 2020
and any reply will be due by May 22, 2020.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the FHFA’s Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae
(ECF No. 45) is granted nunc pro tunc.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Defendant

16
17
18

Hidden Canyon Owners Association (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED.
DATED: March 31, 2020

19
__________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-8-