LAS VEGAS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Appellant,
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.
from a district court order granting summary judgment in a
quiet title action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark
County; Jerry A. Wiese, Judge.
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
Akerman, LLP, and Darren T. Brenner and William S. Habdas,
Las Vegas, for Respondents Bank of America, N.A., and
Recontrust Company, N.A.
Offices of Kevin R. Hansen and Kevin R. Hansen, Las Vegas,
for Respondents EZ Properties, LLC, and K&L Baxter Family
THE COURT EN BANC.
opinion, we consider whether the time limitations in NRS
107.080(5)-(6) (2010) 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.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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). 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.
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.Both LVDG and
Blaha have recorded title to the property.
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.
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.
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 ...