Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

U.S. Bank National Association v. Thunder Properties Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

September 14, 2017

THUNDER PROPERTIES INC.; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; ROES Business Entities 1 through 10, inclusive; and all others who claim interest in the subject property located at 3270 Dutch Creek Court, Reno, NV, 89509, Defendants.



         I. SUMMARY

         This case concerns a homeowner association's (“HOA”) nonjudicial foreclosure sale pursuant to NRS § 116.3116 et seq. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association's Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 18). The Court has reviewed Defendant Thunder Properties' response (ECF No. 19), Plaintiff's reply (ECF No. 24), and the accompanying exhibits. The Court also heard oral argument on the pending Motion on August 23, 2017. (ECF No. 27.)

         For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's Motion is granted.


         The facts in this case are not at issue.

         In 2002, 3270 Dutch Creek Court, Reno, NV 89509 (“the Property) was conveyed to Phillip Schweber (“Borrower”). (ECF No. 1 at 2-3). On November 26, 2003, Borrower took out a mortgage loan (“the Loan”) in the amount of $175, 000 from National City Mortgage Co. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) The Loan was secured by a first deed of trust (“DOT”) on the Property and was recorded on November 26, 2003 with the Washoe County Recorder. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) The DOT was assigned to Plaintiff on August 7, 2013 and recorded as such. (ECF No. 1 at 3.)

         On July 10, 2013, the HOA recorded a Notice of Delinquent Assessment. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) On August 14, 2013, the HOA recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Notice of Delinquent Assessment Lien. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) On January 13, 2014, the HOA recorded a Notice of Sale. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) On March 11, 2014, the HOA conducted a foreclosure sale, at which Defendant purchased the property for $6, 600.00. (See ECF No. 1 at 5.) A Trustee's Deed Upon Sale was recorded on April 8, 2014. (ECF No. 1 at 5.)

         At the time of the HOA's foreclosure sale, the amount owed on the Loan exceeded $153, 000.00 and the fair market value of the Property exceeded $181, 000.00. (ECF No. 1 at 6.)

         Plaintiff brings a claim for quiet title and two claims for declaratory relief, asking in part that this Court declare the HOA foreclosure sale did not extinguish the DOT and that Plaintiff is still the beneficiary of a first position DOT encumbering the Property. (ECF No. 1 at 7-10.)


         “The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is no dispute as to the facts before the court.” Nw. Motorcycle Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal citation omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). An issue is “genuine” if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact-finder could find for the nonmoving party and a dispute is “material” if it could affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, however, summary judgment is not appropriate. See id. at 250-51. “The amount of evidence necessary to raise a genuine issue of material fact is enough ‘to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial.'” Aydin Corp. v. Loral Corp., 718 F.2d 897, 902 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968)). In evaluating a summary judgment motion, a court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Kaiser Cement Corp. v. Fishbach & Moore, Inc., 793 F.2d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 1986).

         The moving party bears the burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib. Corp., 693 F.2d 870, 883 (9th Cir. 1982). “In order to carry its burden of production, the moving party must either produce evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim or defense or show that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted). Once the moving party satisfies Rule 56's requirements, the burden shifts to the party resisting the motion to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. The nonmoving party “may not rely on denials in the pleadings but must produce specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show that the dispute exists, ” Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991), and “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 783 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.

         IV. ...

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.