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. Pacific Legends Green Valley Owners' Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 26, 2017

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
PACIFIC LEGENDS GREEN VALLEY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.'s (“BANA”) motion for partial summary judgment as to the merits of this case. (ECF No. 39). BANA subsequently filed an errata to that motion. (ECF No. 40). Defendants Pacific Legends Green Valley Owners' Association (the “HOA”) and BFP Investments 3, LLC (“BFP”) filed responses (ECF Nos. 42, 43), and BANA filed both a reply (ECF No. 47) and an amended reply (ECF No. 48).

         Also before the court is BFP's motion for partial summary judgment regarding the applicability of the return doctrine in this case. (ECF No. 31). BANA filed a response (ECF No. 36), and BFP filed a reply (ECF No. 38).

         Finally, this court also considers BFP's motion to certify a question of law. (ECF No. 28). BANA has filed a response (ECF No. 32), and BFP has filed a reply (ECF No. 33).

         I. Introduction

         The instant litigation involves the parties' competing interests in the real estate at 75 N. Valle Verde Drive #1025, Henderson, Nevada 89074. (ECF No. 1). BANA received its purported interest in the property via an October 5, 2011, assignment of deed of trust. (ECF No. 40-1).

         On January 3, 2012, the HOA, through Nevada Association Services, Inc. (“NAS”) recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien, indicating an amount due of $758.78. (ECF No. 43-1).

         On February 24, 2012, NAS recorded a notice of default and election to sell, indicating an amount due under the lien of $3, 042.18. (ECF No. 40-1).

         On June 4, 2014, NAS recorded a notice of foreclosure sale on the property, identifying a sum due of $10, 487.03.[1] (ECF No. 43-1).

         On August 25, 2014, NAS recorded a foreclosure deed on the property, which allegedly conveyed title to BFP after auction. (Id.); see also (ECF No. 1).

         II. Legal Standard

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow summary judgment when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A principal purpose of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims . . . .” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323- 24 (1986).

         For purposes of summary judgment, disputed factual issues should be construed in favor of the non-moving party. Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990). However, to be entitled to a denial of summary judgment, the non-moving party must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id.

         In determining summary judgment, the court applies a burden-shifting analysis. “When the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.” C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, “[i]n such a case, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue material to its case.” Id.

         By contrast, when the non-moving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an essential element of the non-moving party's case; or (2) by demonstrating that the non-moving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party's case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment ...


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.