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. Southern Highlands Community Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 18, 2019

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, Plaintiffs,
v.
SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION; ALESSI & KOENIG, LLC; 3711 LODINA CT TRUST; TEAL PETALS ST. TRUST; SATICOY BAY, LLC SERIES 3711 LODINA CT TRUST, Defendants.

          AMENDED ORDER [1]

          MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. SUMMARY

         This dispute arises from the foreclosure sale of property to satisfy a homeowners' association lien. Before the Court are (1) Defendants 3711 Lodina Ct Trust; Teal Petals St. Trust; and Saticoy Bay LLC Series 3711 Lodina Ct Trust's (collectively, “Saticoy Bay”) motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 73), to which Defendant Southern Highlands Community Association (“HOA”) filed a joinder (ECF No. 80), and (2) Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.'s (“BANA”) motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 74). The Court has reviewed the parties' responses (ECF Nos. 78, 79, 84) and replies (ECF Nos. 82, 83, 88). For the following reasons, the Court grants Saticoy Bay's motion and denies BANA's motion as moot.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise indicated.

         Myreon Davis and Daniela Uribe (“Borrowers”) purchased real property (“Property”) located within the HOA at 3711 Lodina Court, Las Vegas, NV 89141 in April or May 2010. (ECF No. 74 at 3; ECF No. 74-1 at 2-15.) The Borrowers financed their purchased with a loan in the amount of $132, 554 (“Loan”) evidence by a note (“Note”) and secured by a first deed of trust (“DOT”) recorded May 25, 2010. (ECF No. 74 at 3.)

         The DOT was assigned to BANA via assignment recorded against the Property on March 21, 2012. (ECF No. 74 at 3; ECF No. 74-1 at 34-35.)

         The HOA, through its agent Alessi & Koenig, LLC (“Alessi”), recorded the following notices against the Property: (1) notice of delinquent assessment lien on February 25, 2011; (2) notice of default and election to sell on May 20, 2011; and (3) notice of foreclosure sale on November 18, 2011. (ECF No. 74 at 4; ECF No. 74-1 at 37, 39, 41.)

         BANA's counsel sent Alessi a letter dated February 10, 2012, asking Alessi to identify the superpriority amount and offering to pay the superpriority amount. (ECF No. 74 at 4; ECF No. 74-1 at 44 (explaining incorrect date on letter), 47-48 (letter).) BANA did not receive a response. (ECF No. 74 at 4; ECF No. 74-1 at 45.)

         The HOA foreclosed on the Property on June 19, 2012 (“HOA Sale”), and 3711 Lodina Court Trust (“Lodina”) purchased the Property for $5, 100. (ECF No. 74 at 4; ECF No. 74-3 at 2.) Lodina deed the Property to Teal Petals St. Trust (“Teal Trust”) on July 27, 2012, and Lodina also transferred its interest in the Property to Saticoy Bay LLC Series 3711 Lodina Ct Trust on September 30, 2013 (“Saticoy Bay LLC Series”).[2] (ECF No. 73 at 2; ECF No. 73-3 at 2; ECF No. 73-4 at 2.)

         BANA filed the Complaint on February 26, 2016, asserting the following claims: (1) quiet title/declaratory judgment against all Defendants; (2) breach of NRS § 116.1113 against the HOA and Alessi; (3) wrongful foreclosure against the HOA and Alessi;[3] and (4) injunctive relief against Teal Trust and Saticoy Bay LLC Series. (ECF No. 1 at 7-14.) Saticoy Bay asserted two counterclaims: (1) quiet title and (2) declaratory relief. (ECF No. 11 at 5-6.)

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         “The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is no dispute as to the facts before the court.” Nw. Motorcycle Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits “show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). An issue is “genuine” if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact-finder could find for the nonmoving party and a dispute is “material” if it could affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, however, summary judgment is not appropriate. See Id. at 250-51. “The amount of evidence necessary to raise a genuine issue of material fact is enough ‘to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial.'” Aydin Corp. v. Loral Corp., 718 F.2d 897, 902 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968)). In evaluating a summary judgment motion, a court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Kaiser Cement Corp. v. Fishbach & Moore, Inc., 793 F.2d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 1986).

         The moving party bears the burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib. Corp., 693 F.2d 870, 883 (9th Cir. 1982). Once the moving party satisfies Rule 56's requirements, the burden shifts to the party resisting the motion to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. The nonmoving party "may not rely on denials in the pleadings but must produce specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show that the dispute exists," Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991), and "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Orrv. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 783 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Matsushita Bee. Indus. Co. v. ...


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.