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.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Terraces At Rose Lake Homeowners Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 20, 2018

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOMES LOANS SERVICING, LP, f/k/a COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, Plaintiff,
v.
TERRACES AT ROSE LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Counter/Cross Claimant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, f/k/a COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, et al., Counter/Cross Defendants.

          ORDER

          GLORIA M. NAVARRO, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

         Pending before the Court is the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 63), filed by Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”). Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 65), and SFR filed a Reply, (ECF No. 66).

         Also pending before the Court is the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 64), filed by BANA. SFR filed a Response, (ECF No. 76), [1] and BANA filed a Reply, (ECF No. 87).

         Also pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 78), filed by SFR. BANA filed a Response, (ECF No. 89), and SFR filed a Reply, (ECF No. 95). For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS BANA's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and DENIES SFR's Motions for Partial Summary Judgment and Summary Judgment.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This case arises out of the non-judicial foreclosure on real property located at 3420 Catherine Mermet Avenue, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89091 (the “Property”). (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1). In March of 2007, Engelbert Espinosa and Charito Espinosa purchased the Property by way of a loan in the amount of $237, 927.00 secured by a Deed of Trust (“DOT”) recorded on March 15, 2007. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13). The DOT identifies CTX Mortgage Company, LLC (“CTX”) as the original lender (Id. ¶ 13). In June of 2007, the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) purchased the loan, obtaining an ownership interest in the DOT. (Id. ¶ 14). BANA acquired an interest in the DOT through a corporation assignment of deed of trust in July of 2010. (Id. ¶ 15).

         On July 22, 2010, Defendant Alessi & Koenig, LLC (“A&K”) recorded a notice of delinquent assessment against the Property on behalf of Defendant Terraces at Rose Lake Homeowners Association (“HOA”). (Id. ¶ 22). On October 15, 2010, a notice of default and election to sell was recorded to satisfy the delinquent assessment lien. (Id. ¶ 24).

         On May 10, 2011, BANA, as servicer for Fannie Mae, remitted payment to HOA through A&K. (Id. ¶ 31). Although BANA requested the super-priority amount HOA alleged was due, HOA did not provide this amount. (Id. ¶ 32). Nevertheless, BANA tendered what it calculated was the super-priority amount to HOA through A&K on May 10, 2011. (Id. ¶ 34). On May 25, 2011, A&K, on behalf of HOA, recorded a trustee's deed upon sale indicating that HOA purchased the property. (Id. ¶ 35). On November 6, 2013, HOA transferred its interest in the property to SFR through a quitclaim deed. (Id. ¶ 37).

         On May 17, 2016, BANA filed its Complaint claiming the following causes of action against various parties involved in the foreclosure and subsequent sale of the Property: (1) declaratory relief; (2) quiet title; (3) breach of Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”) § 116.1113; (4) wrongful foreclosure; and (5) injunctive relief. (Id. ¶¶ 38-97).

         On July 12, 2016, SFR filed its Answer, (ECF No. 19), that asserted counterclaims against BANA for quiet title and injunctive relief. (SFR's Answer 15:14-16:4). In response, BANA filed an Answer asserting, inter alia, an affirmative defense that “NRS Chapter 116 is facially unconstitutional because its ‘opt-in' notice provisions do not mandate reasonable and affirmative steps to be taken to give actual notice to a record lien holder before depriving the lien holder of its property rights . . . .” (BANA's Answer 9:17-20, ECF No. 27).

         On August 10, 2017, SFR filed the instant Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 63), and on August 31, 2017, BANA filed its Counter Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 64). SFR filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on October 5, 2017, (ECF No. 78).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary adjudication 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 judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. “Summary judgment is inappropriate if reasonable jurors, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, could return a verdict in the nonmoving party's favor.” Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P'ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 1999)). 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).

         In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burden-shifting analysis. “When the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue material to its case.” C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). In contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an essential element of the nonmoving party's case; or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party's case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at ...


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.