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.

PNC BANK, N.A. v. Wingfield Springs Community Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

September 20, 2017

PNC BANK, N.A., Plaintiff,
v.
WINGFIELD SPRINGS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION; WILLIAM WON HOLDINGS, LLC; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; and all others who claim interest in the subject property located at 7118 Valliant Drive, Sparks, NV 89436, Defendants. WILLIAM WON HOLDINGS, LLC, Counter-Claimant,
v.
PNC BANK, N.A., Counter-Defendant. WINGFIELD SPRINGS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
ATC COLLECTION GROUP, LLC, Third-Party Defendant.

          ORDER (PL.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - ECF NO. 63)

          MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. SUMMARY

         Before the Court is Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant PNC Bank, N.A.'s (“PNC Bank”) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 63.) The Court has reviewed Defendant/Third- Party Plaintiff Wingfield Springs Community Association's (“Homeowner Association” or “HOA”) response (ECF No. 66), Defendant/Counter-Claimant William Won Holdings, LLC's (“Won Holdings”) joinder (ECF No. 71), and Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant's reply (ECF No. 72). Oral argument was held on August 23, 2017. (ECF No. 77.)

         The Court grants in part and denies in part summary judgment for the reasons discussed below.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The facts below are taken from the HOA's statement of undisputed facts (ECF No. 66) unless otherwise indicated.

         A couple, Gordon and Michelle Johnson, purchased a home in Sparks (the “Property”) that is part of a homeowners' association called the Wingfield Springs Community Association in 2007. The Johnsons entered into two loan agreements at the time of purchase. The first was with Elegen Home Lending, LP (“Elegen”) in the amount of $263, 520.00, and the deed of trust securing the loan was recorded against the Property on March 26, 2007 (the “First Deed of Trust”). The second was with National City Bank, N.A. in the amount of $32, 940.00, and the deed of trust securing the loan was recorded against the Property on March 26, 2007 (the “Second Deed of Trust”). Plaintiff PNC Bank now holds the beneficial interest in both the First Deed of Trust and Second Deed of Trust after various assignments and mergers. (See ECF no. 63 at 2.)

         The Johnsons failed to pay HOA assessments, and the HOA eventually foreclosed on the Property pursuant to NRS § 116.3116 et seq. in May 2013. Won Holdings purchased the property at the sale for $3, 545.00. Plaintiff PNC Bank filed suit seeking to quiet title and obtain declaratory relief. (ECF No. 63.)

         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 plaintiffs position will be insufficient . . . .” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.

         IV. DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on its quiet title, declaratory relief, and unconstitutional statute claims as well as on Won Holdings' quiet title and attorney's fees counterclaims. (ECF No. 63 at 2.) Plaintiff argues that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Bourne Valley Court Tr v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA,832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied,137 S.Ct. 2296 (2017), requires this Court to declare that the HOA foreclosure sale did not extinguish Plaintiff's First Deed of Trust ...


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.