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.

Las Vegas Development Group, LLC v. Blaha

Supreme Court of Nevada

May 3, 2018

LAS VEGAS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
JAMES R. BLAHA, AN INDIVIDUAL; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP; RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., A TEXAS CORPORATION; EZ PROPERTIES, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; K&L BAXTER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A NEVADA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AND NOBLE HOME LOANS, INC., F/K/AFCH FUNDING, INC., AN UNKNOWN CORPORATE ENTITY, Respondents.

          Appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment in a quiet title action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jerry A. Wiese, Judge.

          Roger P. Croteau & Associates, Ltd., and Roger P. Croteau and Timothy E. Rhoda, Las Vegas, for Appellant.

          Kolesar & Leatham and Aaron R. Maurice and Brittany Wood, Las Vegas, for Respondents James R. Blaha and Noble Home Loans, Inc.

          Akerman, LLP, and Darren T. Brenner and William S. Habdas, Las Vegas, for Respondents Bank of America, N.A., and Recontrust Company, N.A.

          Law Offices of Kevin R. Hansen and Kevin R. Hansen, Las Vegas, for Respondents EZ Properties, LLC, and K&L Baxter Family Limited Partnership.

         BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.

          OPINION

          HARDESTY, J.

         In this opinion, we consider whether the time limitations in NRS 107.080(5)-(6) (2010)[1] bar an action challenging an NRS Chapter 107 nonjudicial foreclosure where it is alleged that the deed of trust had been extinguished before the sale. Because such an action challenges the authority to conduct the sale, rather than the manner in which the foreclosure was conducted, we conclude that the time limitations set forth in NRS 107.080(5)-(6) do not apply to such an action.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         This case involves a residential property located in a common-interest community governed by the Nevada Trails II Community Association (HOA). The former homeowner, who is not a party to this case, purchased the property for $456, 000 with a loan secured by a first deed of trust that was assigned to respondent Bank of America, N.A. (BANA).[2] By 2010, the homeowner had fallen delinquent on both his loan obligations and his HOA assessments. The HOA and BANA each initiated separate nonjudicial foreclosure sales.

         On April 12, 2011, the HOA held a nonjudicial foreclosure sale pursuant to NRS Chapter 116. Appellant Las Vegas Development Group, LLC (LVDG) purchased the property at the HOA foreclosure sale for $5, 200, and recorded the deed on April 13, 2011. Approximately five months later, on August 29, 2011, BANA conducted a foreclosure sale pursuant to NRS Chapter 107, at which respondent EZ Properties, LLC, purchased the property for $151, 300. EZ then sold the property to respondent James R. Blaha for $208, 000, and Blaha recorded his deed on September 30, 2011.[3]Both LVDG and Blaha have recorded title to the property.

         On March 19, 2015, LVDG filed a complaint in the district court, asserting five causes of action against all of the respondents: (1) quiet title, (2) equitable mortgage, (3) slander of title, (4) wrongful foreclosure, and (5) rescission. LVDG also asserted a cause of action for unjust enrichment against BANA, Recontrust Company, N.A., and EZ, and a cause of action for conversion against BANA and Recontrust. LVDG relied on SFR Investments Pool I, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. 742, 334 P.3d 408 (2014), to argue that the HOA foreclosure sale extinguished the first deed of trust and therefore BANA lacked authority to conduct a nonjudicial foreclosure sale on the property. Thus, according to LVDG, BANA's foreclosure sale and all subsequent transfers of the property were void and LVDG is the rightful owner of the property.

         Blaha moved for summary judgment, arguing primarily that LVDG's claims were barred by the statute of limitations in NRS 107.080(5)-(6) because LVDG failed to file the complaint within 90 or 120 days of the deed-of-trust foreclosure sale. Blaha also argued that the slander of title claim should be dismissed as untimely under NRS 11.190(4)(c) (2010). In response, LVDG contended that the time limitations in NRS 107.080(5)-(6) did not apply to its claims because the deed-of-trust foreclosure sale was void ab initio. LVDG did not oppose summary judgment for the slander of title claim. The district court granted Blaha's motion for summary judgment on the slander of title claim and concluded that the 90- or 120-day statute of limitations in NRS 107.080(5)-(6) barred all of LVDG's remaining causes of action.

         LVDG appeals from the grant of summary judgment. Accordingly, the narrow issue we consider is whether NRS 107.080(5)-(6) applies to challenges to the authority behind ...


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.