United States District Court, D. Nevada
GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; and FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, as Conservator of Federal National Mortgage Association, Plaintiffs,
RAINBOW BEND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; DANIEL HALL; DIANA HALL, Defendants.
ORDER (PL.'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
- ECF NO. 58)
MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case concerns a homeowner association's
(“HOA”) nonjudicial foreclosure sale pursuant to
NRS § 116.3116 et seq. Before the Court is
Plaintiff Green Tree Servicing LLC's (“Green
Tree's”) Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment
(“Motion”). The Court has reviewed the
Defendants' response (ECF No. 59) and Plaintiff Green
Tree's reply (ECF No. 64). The Court also heard oral
argument on the pending Motion on August 23,
2017. (ECF No. 67.) Plaintiff's Motion is
granted for the reasons discussed below.
facts in this case are not at issue.
Carpenter purchased real property (“Property”)
within Defendant Rainbow Bend Homeowners Association
(“HOA”) in February 2004. (ECF No. 59 at 4.) A
month later, Ms. Carpenter borrowed $106, 640.00 from the
First National Bank of Nevada (“Loan”).
(Id.) She executed a promissory note
(“Note”) for that amount which was secured by a
deed of trust (“DOT”) on the Property.
(Id.) The Note and DOT were assigned several times,
but the parties agree that Green Tree is the current
beneficiary under the DOT and servicer of the Loan.
(Id. at 6-7; ECF No. 58 at 2.)
Carpenter failed to pay HOA assessments, and the HOA
eventually foreclosed on the Property pursuant to NRS §
116.3116 et seq. in July 2013. (ECF No. 59 at 5.)
The HOA purchased the property at the sale for $837.00.
(Id.; ECF No. 59-9 at 2.) Defendants Daniel and
Diana Hall (“Halls”) purchased the Property from
the HOA for $12, 500.00 about a year and a half later, in
December 2014. (ECF No. 59 at 8; ECF No. 59-18 at 4.)
Plaintiffs filed suit seeking to quiet title and obtain
declaratory relief. (ECF No. 13 at 8-12.)
judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, the discovery and
disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits “show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986). An issue is genuine “if the evidence
is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party, ” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986), and a dispute is
material if it could affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing law. Id.
judgment is not appropriate when “reasonable minds
could differ as to the import of the evidence.” See
Id. at 250-51. “The amount of evidence necessary
to raise a genuine issue of material fact is [that which 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 of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89
(1968)). Decisions granting or denying summary judgment are
made in light of the purpose of summary judgment: “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
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). Once the
moving party satisfies the requirements of Rule 56, 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. In
evaluating a summary judgment motion, a court views all facts
and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. In re Slatkin, 525 F.3d 805, 810
(9th Cir. 2008). If a party relies on an affidavit or
declaration to support or oppose a motion, it “must be
made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be
admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or
declarant is competent to testify on the matters
stated.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(4). 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., 285 F.3d 764, 783
(9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)).
“The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in
support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient
. . . .” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
Green Tree moves for summary judgment on its first and third
claims. This Court will address the first claim because the
third claim was dismissed in a prior order. (ECF No. 47 at