United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(c). ECF No. 15. For the reasons discussed
herein, the Court dismisses the matter without prejudice and
grants Plaintiff leave to move to reopen the matter after
seeking clarification from the bankruptcy court on the
at-issue bankruptcy orders.
sued Defendant in state court on February 28, 2018, alleging
a single claim for declaratory relief to quiet title of a
property. ECF No. 1-1. Defendant removed the matter to this
Court on April 13, 2018 and answered the Complaint on May 7,
2018. ECF Nos. 1, 8. A Scheduling Order was entered on June
28, 2018. ECF No. 12.
now moves for Judgment on the Pleadings. ECF No. 15.
Plaintiff opposed the motion, and Defendant replied. ECF Nos.
20, 23. The Court stayed this matter, per the parties'
stipulation, pending resolution of the pending motion. ECF
Nos. 25, 26.
matter centers on the parties' interest in a property
located at 3261 Bridge House, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89032.
2007, a deed of trust was recorded against the property. The
deed of trust secured a promissory note executed by nonparty
Alfredo Sanchez. On February 7, 2011, Sanchez filed a Chapter
7 Bankruptcy petition. The property was listed in the
petition as a secured claim in the amount of $255, 959.00.
Sanchez was discharged from the bankruptcy matter on July 11,
on April 24, 2014, the bankruptcy trustee moved to sell the
property subject to all liens and encumbrances. Bankruptcy
Judge Nakagawa granted the motion, imposing the following
Upon payment of the [final price at the auction of the
property], the Trustee will provide the [buyer] with a
Declaration of Value and a Trustee's Quitclaim Deed
…; these Documents, along with this Order, must be
recorded with the Clark County Recorder's Office no later
than 14 days after delivery to the [buyer]. By accepting the
Documents, the [buyer] agrees that it is solely responsible
for ensuring this timely recordation and for presenting
evidence of this timely recordation to the Trustee within 20
days of the delivery. Failure to timely record shall
automatically void the [sale] and the Documents delivered,
meaning any later attempt to record them after the 14 days
has expired shall provide the [buyer] with no legal basis to
successfully transfer the estate's interest in the
Property. Failure to timely record shall also automatically
result in a complete forfeiture to the estate of all monies
paid by the [buyer].
purchased the property on June 9, 2014. On August 1, 2014,
Judge Nakawaga signed an amended order to confirm that the
debtor and Sanchez were the same individual. Judge Nakawaga
explained via a footnote that the amended order was entered
because Plaintiff could not record the deed of trust from the
sale due to the variance in spelling of Sanchez's name on
relevant documents. On August 28, 2014, Plaintiff then
recorded the quitclaim deed, which was dated August 1, 2014.
Thus, the quitclaim deed was recorded twenty-seven days after
Judge Nakawaga's amended order was entered and after the
date the quitclaim deed was executed. Plaintiff did not
record the Bankruptcy Order or Amended Order.
November 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
petition. The property was listed as a secured claim in the
petition. On March 26, 2015, Plaintiff moved to cramdown the
first deed of trust. The notice of the motion did not include
mailing to the proper Bank of America address listed on the
first deed of trust. The motion was granted as unopposed on
April 27, 2015, stating that the first deed of trust is
partially unsecured beyond $56, 000.00. Plaintiff's
Second Amended Plan of Reorganization was later approved on
October 21, 2016, which lists the value of the property at
$56, 000.00. Defendant never disputed Plaintiff's
ownership in the property during Plaintiff's nor
Sanchez's bankruptcy proceedings. Rather, Defendant
reviewed and approved through its counsel the Bankruptcy
Court's Order approving the Amended Plan of
Reorganization. Defendant did so despite previously objecting
to the confirmation of Plaintiff's proposed plan of
reorganization as it related to another property.