United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is plaintiff/counterdefendant Carrington
Mortgage Services, LLC's (“CMS”) motion for
reconsideration. (ECF No. 110). Defendant Oak Park Homeowners
Association (“the HOA”) (ECF No. 116), and
defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”)
(ECF No. 117) filed responses, to which CMS replied (ECF No.
case involves a dispute over real property located at 909
Veranda View Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89123 (the
September 25, 2008, Samuel and Harry Juergens obtained a loan
in the amount of $171, 311.00 from Taylor, Bean &
Whitaker Mortgage Corp. (“TBW”) to purchase the
property, which was secured by a deed of trust recorded on
November 3, 2008. (ECF No. 37). The loan was insured by the
Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”). (ECF No.
April 14, 2010, defendant Nevada Association Services, Inc.
(“NAS”), acting on behalf of the HOA, recorded a
notice of delinquent assessment lien. (ECF No. 37). On
December 1, 2010, NAS recorded a notice of default and
election to sell to satisfy the delinquent assessment lien.
(ECF No. 37).
January 4, 2011, Bank of America, N.A.'s
(“BANA”) prior counsel Miles, Bauer, Bergstrom
& Winters, LLP (“MBBW”) requested a
superpriority demand payoff from NAS. (ECF No. 37). On
January 25, 2011, MBBW received a payoff demand from NAS,
with a full lien payoff in the amount of $3, 281.56. (ECF No.
37). MBBW determined the superpriority portion of the lien to
be $503.10, and tendered that amount to NAS on February 25,
2011, which NAS allegedly rejected. (ECF No. 37).
28, 2011, the deed of trust was assigned to BAC Home Loans
Servicing, LP, f/k/a Countrywide Home Loan Servicing, LP via
an assignment deed recorded August 1, 2011. (ECF No. 37).
August 23, 2012, NAS sent, by certified mail, to BAC (among
others) a notice of trustee's sale. (ECF No. 44-1 at
82-88). On August 27, 2012, NAS recorded a notice of
trustee's sale. (ECF No. 37). On December 28, 2012, SFR
purchased the property at the foreclosure sale for $7,
400.00. (ECF No. 37). A foreclosure deed in favor of SFR was
recorded on January 3, 2013. (ECF No. 37).
September 5, 2014, BANA recorded a request for notice
pursuant to NRS 116.3118. (ECF No. 50 at 4). On December 23,
2014, BANA assigned its beneficial interest under the deed of
trust to CMS via an assignment deed, which was recorded on
January 29, 2015. (ECF Nos. 37, 50).
20, 2015, CMS filed a complaint (ECF No. 1), which was later
amended on February 29, 2016 (ECF No. 37). In the amended
complaint, CMS alleges nine claims for relief: (1) quiet
title/declaratory relief against SFR, the HOA, and NAS; (2)
preliminary injunction against SFR; (3) wrongful/statutorily
defective foreclosure against the HOA and NAS; (4) negligence
against the HOA and NAS; (5) negligence per se
against the HOA and NAS; (6) unjust enrichment against SFR,
the HOA, and NAS; (7) breach of contract against the HOA and
NAS; (8) misrepresentation against the HOA; and (9) breach of
good faith and fair dealing against the HOA and NAS. (ECF No.
August 20, 2015, SFR filed a crossclaim, alleging three
claims for relief: (1) quiet title/declaratory relief against
CMS, BANA, and the Juergens; (2) preliminary and permanent
injunction; and (3) slander of title against CMS and BANA.
(ECF No. 12).
February 8, 2017, the court dismissed all of CMS's claims
(ECF No. 1) except for claims (1) and (3). (ECF No. 91). In
that same order, the court denied SFR's (ECF No. 44) and
BANA's (ECF No. 45) motions for summary judgment. (ECF
March 9, 2017, CMS filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. (ECF No. 96). On July 3, 2017, the court denied
CMS's motion and dismissed CMS's wrongful foreclosure
claim against the HOA for failure to mediate pursuant to NRS
38.310. (ECF No. 107). The court also held that SFR is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its quiet title
claim against CMS and BANA because CMS had no interest in the
deed of trust until after the HOA sale. Id. Judgment
was then entered in favor of SFR. (ECF No. 108).
instant motion, CMS seeks the court to reconsider its July 3,
2017 order. (ECF No. 110). Specifically, CMS argues (1) its
wrongful foreclosure claim against the HOA should not have
been dismissed and, (2) the court should not have granted