Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nevada Association Services, Inc. v. Tumanan

United States District Court, District of Nevada

April 20, 2015

NEVADA ASSOCIATION SERVICES, INC., Plaintiffs,
v.
RAMON TUMANAN, et al.,, Defendants.

ORDER

Presently before the court is plaintiff Nevada Association Services, Inc.’s (hereinafter, “NAS”) motion for attorneys’ fees. (Doc. # 60). Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A. (hereinafter, “U.S. Bank”) filed a response, (doc. # 63), and plaintiff filed a reply, (doc. # 64).

I. Background

This is an interpleader case brought by NAS, a debt collection agency that works on behalf of homeowners associations to collect debts secured by real property. (Doc. # 1-2).

Defendants Ramon and Charity Tumanan purchased real property located at 6342 Mighty Flotilla Ave., Las Vegas, 89139. (Doc. # 60). The Tumanans took out a loan of $408, 150, which was secured by a deed of trust. (Doc. # 63). This deed of trust was assigned to U.S. Bank on September 25, 2009. (Doc. # 63). The Tumanans failed to pay a debt owed to the Coronado Ranch Street and Landscape Maintenance Association (hereinafter, “HOA”), and NAS was contracted by the HOA to collect the debts owed to it for unpaid homeowners assessments. (Doc. # 1-2).

After attempting to directly collect the debt from the Tumanans, NAS served as the HOA’s foreclosure agent in a non-judicial foreclosure. (Docs. ## 1-2, 60). The foreclosure occurred on May 17, 2013, and the property sold for $56, 000. (Doc. # 60).

Plaintiff paid out a total of $5, 106.58 from this amount to itself, the HOA, the management company, the posting company, and the title company. (Doc. # 60). In addition, plaintiff also retained $1, 000 for costs and fees incurred.[1] (Doc. # 60). At this point, $49, 893.58 remained from the proceeds, and there were liens and claims on the property in excess of $700, 000. (Doc. # 60).

To determine who was entitled to the excess funds, plaintiff filed the instant interpleader action in state court. (Doc. # 60). NAS then deposited the excess proceeds with the clerk of the Eighth Judicial District Court. (Doc. # 60). The United States removed the case to this court on November 18, 2013. (Doc. # 60). This court ordered that the interpled funds be transferred to the clerk of this court. (Doc. # 60). The interpled funds were deposited with this court on October 10, 2014. (Doc. # 60).

Under the instant motion, NAS seeks attorneys’ fees for the work done to file and prosecute this action. (Doc. # 60). NAS also seeks to be discharged from the case with no further liability as to the interpled funds. (Doc. # 60).

On December 17, 2014, the United States disclaimed any interest in the interpled funds and sought to be dismissed from this matter. (Doc. # 66). On December 22, 2014, this court recognized the disclaimer and dismissed the United States from this matter. (Doc. # 67).

II. Discussion

U.S. Bank asserts that NAS did not seek this court’s jurisdiction to interplead the funds under rule interpleader (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22) or statutory interpleader (28 U.S.C. § 1335). Rather, NAS sought an interpleader under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 22, as this action was initially brought in state court. Under U.S. Bank’s view, because this interpleader action originated in state court, state law must govern whether NAS should be awarded attorneys’ fees. U.S. Bank argues that state law does not permit NAS to collect attorneys’ fees.

NAS asserts that the reason this case was removed was due to the applicability of federal law. NAS argues that because federal law determines the priority of competing liens where one of them is a United States tax lien, federal law should govern whether an award of attorneys’ fees is appropriate. Finally, NAS claims that it is proper for this court to grant attorneys’ fees in equity.

Although this case started in state court, this case was properly removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 and § 1444. Under § 1442, “A civil action . . . that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States . . . (1) The United States . . . on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for . . . the collection of the revenue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442.

Furthermore, § 1444 provides that any action brought in state court against the United States, which affects property on which United States has lien (i.e., the claim is brought under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2410), may be removed by the United States ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.