United States District Court, D. Nevada
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, MASTER ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2004-2 MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-2, Plaintiff,
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.
MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.)
reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's Motion is granted.
facts in this case are not at issue.
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.)
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).
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.