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.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Sonrisa Homeowners Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

February 2, 2017

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff,
v.
SONRISA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC; NEVADA ASSOCIATION SERVICES, INC., Defendants. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Counter/Cross Claimant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A, ; UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER; RICK C. WATKINS, an individual; and JENNIFER L. WATKINS, and individual Counter/Cross Defendants.

          AKERMAN LLP, DARREN T. BRENNER, ESQ., TENESA S. SCATURRO, ESQ., Attorneys for Bank of America, N.A.

          KIM GILBERT EBRON, DIANA CLINE EBRON, ESQ., JACQUELINE A. GILBERT, ESQ., KAREN L. HANKS, ESQ., Attorneys for SFR Investment Pool 1, LLC.

          LEACH JOHNSON SONG & GRUCHOW, SEAN L. ANDERSON, ESQ., RYAN D. HASTINGS, ESQ., Attorneys for Sonrisa Homeowners' Association.

          NEVADA ASSOCIATION SERVICES, INC., CHRISTOPHER V. YERGENSEN, ESQ., Attorney for Nevada Association Services, Inc.

          STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING STAY OF LITIGATION AND DISCOVERY PENDING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING BOURNE VALLEY

         Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), Defendant/Counterclaimant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”), Defendant Sonrisa Homeowners Association (“Association”), Nevada Association Services (“NAS”)(collectively the “parties), by and through their respective counsel, stipulate and agree as follows:

         1. This litigation arises from the September 6, 2013 purported foreclosure of the real property located at 1208 El Viento Court, Henderson, NV 89074; Parcel No. 178-15-711-011 (the “Property”) pursuant to the Association's lien (“Association foreclosure sale”).

         2. BANA stipulates it received the following documents[1]:

a. Notice of Default: BANA received a notice of default dated January 1, 2013 for Sonrisa on January 23, 2013. BANA includes a copy of the notice of default it received as Exhibit 1.
b. Notice of Sale: BANA received a notice of sale dated August 12, 2013 on August 20, 2013 advising NAS would foreclose Sonrisa's lien on September 6, 2013. BANA includes a copy of the notice of sale it received as Exhibit 2.

         3. The parties stipulate and agree that through this litigation BANA is seeking, among other relief, a declaration that the lien created by the deed of trust recorded against the Property in the Official Records of the Clark County Recorder as Instrument No. 201004280002680 (“Deed of Trust”) was not extinguished by the Association foreclosure sale. BANA claims an interest in the Deed of Trust, but stipulates that it is not seeking to foreclose on the Deed of Trust through this action.[2] The parties stipulate and agree that SFR reserve its rights to challenge BANA's standing to foreclose on the Deed of Trust as the owner and/or servicer of the loan. BANA waives no rights to counter these arguments, but agrees they are not at issue in this case. .

         4. Based on the above agreements and to conserve the resources of the parties and the Court, the parties further stipulate and agree to stay discovery and litigation, including without limitation any pending depositions, on all issues raised by the pleadings except as relevant to the effect of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Bourne Valley Court Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154, 1157-58 (9th Cir. 2016), r'hng denied (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) on the Association's purported foreclosure sale.

         5. The parties stipulate and agree that the briefing in response to BANA's Motion for Summary Judgment filed on September 20, 2016 [ECF No. 58] shall remain stayed.

         6. The parties stipulate and agree that BANA shall file a motion for summary judgment limited to the issue of the effect of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Bourne Valley on the Association's purported foreclosure sale and the defendants shall respond pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules. The parties agree the stay provided for in this stipulation as to discovery, litigation and any other applicable deadlines shall remain in effect until the resolution of BANA's motion for summary judgment regarding the effect of Bourne Valley on the Association foreclosure sale.

         7. The parties agree that the briefing and consideration of the Motion to Certify a Question of Law to Nevada's Supreme Court filed by SFR on November 17, 2016 [ECF No.72] shall not be stayed because SFR contends that the motion impacts the effect of Ninth Circuit's ruling in Bourne Valley on the Association's purported foreclosure sale. Similarly, briefing on SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding a Pure Issue of Law: Application of the Return Doctrine Post-Bourne Valley [ECF No. 85] ...


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.