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.

US Bank National Assoc. v. Premier One Holdings, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 31, 2018

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOC., AS TRUSTEE FOR SRPF-2013-S3 REMIC TRUST 1, Plaintiffs,
v.
PREMIER ONE HOLDINGS, INC.,, Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is plaintiff U.S. Bank, N.A.'s (“U.S. Bank”) motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 97). Defendant Premier One Holdings, Inc.'s (“Premier”) filed a response (ECF No. 103), to which plaintiff replied (ECF No. 101).

         Also before the court is defendant's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 99). Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 100), to which defendant replied (ECF No. 105).

         I. Facts

         This case involves a dispute over real property located at 3151 Soaring Gulls Drive #1167, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89128 (the “property”). On May 16, 2008, defendant Ryan Hayes obtained a loan in the amount of $81, 707.00 from non-party Quicken Loans, Inc., (“Quicken Loans”) to purchase the property, which was secured by a deed of trust recorded on May 21, 2008. (ECF No. 1).

         On June 20, 2011, beneficial interest in the deed of trust was assigned to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP. (ECF No. 102-1).

         On March 17, 2014, the deed of trust was assigned to U.S. Bank via an assignment of deed of trust recorded on May 9, 2014. (ECF No. 1 at 22). Thereafter, the deed of trust was assigned to the secretary of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) via an assignment of deed of trust recorded on May 28, 2014.[1] (ECF No. 1 at 25). Subsequently, the deed was re-assigned to U.S. Bank from the secretary of HUD via an assignment of deed of trust recorded on June 10, 2014. (ECF No. 1 at 27).

         On December 30, 2013, defendant Nevada Association Services, Inc. (“NAS”), acting on behalf of Desert Shores Community Association (“the HOA”), recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien. (ECF No. 1 at 31). On February 20, 2014, NAS recorded a notice of default and election to sell to satisfy the delinquent assessment lien, stating an amount due of $3, 583.86. (ECF No. 1 at 33).

         On June 3, 2014, NAS recorded a notice of foreclosure sale, stating an amount due of $4, 513.09. (ECF No. 1 at 37). On June 25, 2014, Premier purchased the property at the foreclosure sale for $7, 000. (ECF No. 1 at 41). A foreclosure deed in favor of Premier was recorded on June 26, 2014. (ECF No. 1 at 41).

         NAS sent copies of the foregoing notices to Bank of America and to BAC. (ECF No. 99-2). NAS also sent a copy of the foregoing notices to “U.S. Bank c/o Bank of America.” Id. This copy was sent to an address presumably belonging to Bank of America in Plano, Texas (the same address that NAS sent Bank of America copies of the notices). Id. Defendant provides no evidence that NAS sent copies of the notices directly to U.S. Bank or to HUD.

         On June 15, 2015, U.S. Bank filed the underlying complaint, alleging one cause of action: quiet title against all defendants. (ECF No. 1).

         In the instant motions, U.S. Bank and Premier move for summary judgment in their favor. (ECF Nos. 97, 99).

         II. Legal Standard

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow summary judgment when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A principal purpose of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).

         For purposes of summary judgment, disputed factual issues should be construed in favor of the non-moving party. Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990). However, to be entitled to a denial of summary judgment, the nonmoving party must “set ...


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.