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.

Federal National Mortgage Association v. Monaco Landscape Maintenance Association, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 21, 2017

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
MONACO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is defendant Monaco Landscape Maintenance Association, Inc.'s (the “HOA”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) filed a response (ECF No. 15), to which the HOA replied (ECF No. 17).

         I. Facts

         This case involves a dispute over real property located at 3296 Lapis Beach Drive, Las Vegas NV 89117 (the “property”). On May 17, 2006, Lang Tsoi and Souriya Tsoi obtained a loan from Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. in the amount of $324, 000.00 to purchase the property, which was secured by a deed of trust recorded on May 30, 2006. (ECF No. 1).

         In June 2006, Fannie Mae acquired ownership of the loan. (ECF No. 1 at 5). Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) assigned the deed of trust to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP (“BAC”) via assignment of deed of trust recorded September 3, 2009. (ECF No. 1 at 6). Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) is successor by merger to BAC as of July 1, 2011. (ECF No. 1 at 6).

         On November 6, 2012, defendant ATC Assessment Collection Group, LLC (“ATC”), acting on behalf of Monaco Landscape Maintenance Association, Inc. (the “HOA”), recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $855.97. (ECF No. 1 at 8). On December 7, 2012, ATC recorded a notice of default and election to sell to satisfy the delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $1, 701.51. (ECF No. 1 at 8).

         On December 27, 2012, BANA requested a ledger from the HOA/ATC identifying the superpriority amount allegedly owed to the HOA. (ECF No. 1). The HOA/ATC provided a ledger dated January 8, 2013, which set forth the total amount due, but not the superpriority amount due. (ECF No. 1 at 9). BANA calculated the superpriority amount to be $989.96 and tendered that amount to ATC on January 31, 2013, which the HOA/ATC allegedly refused. (ECF No. 1 at 9).

         On February 24, 2014, ATC recorded a notice of trustee's sale, stating an amount due of $3, 448.43. (ECF No. 1). On April 18, 2014, defendant Inception Investments LLC (“Inception”) purchased the property at the foreclosure sale for $21, 000.00. (ECF No. 1 at 8). A trustee's deed upon sale in favor of Inception was recorded on April 22, 2014. (ECF No. 1).

         The conservator did not consent to the HOA foreclosure sale. (ECF No. 1 at 8).

         On December 23, 2016, Fannie Mae and BANA filed the underlying complaint, alleging eight causes of action: (1) declaratory relief under 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) against Inception; (2) quiet title under 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) against Inception; (3) declaratory relief under Amendments V and XIV (BANA against all defendants); (4) quiet title under Amendments V and XIV (BANA against Inception); (5) declaratory judgment (BANA against all defendants); (6) breach of NRS 116.1113 (BANA against the HOA and ATC); (7) wrongful foreclosure (BANA against the HOA and ATC); and (8) injunctive relief against Inception. (ECF No. 1).

         On January 17, 2017, Inception filed an answer and counterclaim against Fannie Mae and BANA for quiet title and injunctive relief, as well as for cancellation of instruments. (ECF No. 11).

         In the instant motion, the HOA moves to dismiss the claims against it pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 13).

         II. Legal Standard

         A court may dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A properly pled complaint must provide “[a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).

         “Factual allegations must be enough to rise above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to ‚Äústate a claim to relief that is ...


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.