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.

Green Tree Servicing LLC v. Rainbow Bend Homeowners Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

September 20, 2017

GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; and FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, as Conservator of Federal National Mortgage Association, Plaintiffs,
v.
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

         I. SUMMARY

         This 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.[1] (ECF No. 67.) Plaintiff's Motion is granted for the reasons discussed below.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The facts in this case are not at issue.

         Shanna 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.)

         Ms. 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.)

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         Summary 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.

         Summary 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 Cir. 1994).

         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). 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.

         IV. DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff 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 7.)

         A. Applicability ...


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.