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. Huffaker Hills Unit No. 2 Residence Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 19, 2019

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
HUFFAKER HILLS UNIT NO. 2 RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants. NADINA BEVERLY, TRUSTEE FOR THE BEVERLY-BLAIR TRUST NO. 7, Counterclaimant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al., Counter-Defendants,

          ORDER

          MIRANDA DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. SUMMARY

         This dispute arises from a homeowners' association foreclosure sale. Before the Court is Plaintiffs Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”), and Federal National Mortgage Association's (“Fannie Mae”) motion for summary judgment (“Motion”) seeking a declaration that the foreclosure sale did not extinguish Fannie Mae's interest in the property at issue on the basis of the federal foreclosure bar (ECF No. 60).[1] Because the Court finds that the federal foreclosure bar applies here, the Court will grant the Motion.

         II. BACKGROUND

         A. The Loan and the HOA Sale

         On or about July 15, 2005, Brett R. Gundle and Julie R. Gundle (“Borrowers”) obtained a loan (the “Loan”) from Quicken Loans, Inc. (“Lender”) for $184, 000. (ECF No. 60 at 5.) The Loan was secured by a deed of trust (“DOT”) recorded against Borrowers' property located at 7501 Bluestone Drive, Reno, Nevada (“the Property”). (Id.) Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) was the nominee beneficiary on the DOT. (Id.)

         In September 2005, Fannie Mae purchased the Loan and acquired ownership of the DOT. (Id. at 6.) The DOT was assigned to BANA on December 13, 2012. (Id.) BANA continues to service the loan for Fannie Mae. (Id.)

         After Borrowers failed to make any payments to the HOA, the lawyer for the HOA recorded a notice of delinquent assessment on March 9, 2010, followed by a Notice of Default and Election to Sell, and a Notice of Foreclosure Sale against the Property. (Id. at 7.) On October 4, 2010, the HOA foreclosed on the Property, and purchased the Property for $2, 526.51 (the “HOA Sale”). (Id.) On January 4, 2011, a grant bargain sale deed transferring title from the HOA to Beverly was recorded in the Washoe County recorder's office. (Id.)

         Plaintiffs assert a claim for declaratory judgment against all Defendants, and two claims for quiet title and injunctive relief against Beverly. (ECF No. 1.) Beverly asserted counterclaims for quiet title and her attorneys' fees. (ECF No. 11.)

         B. Summary Judgment Proceedings

         The Court stayed this case pending the Ninth Circuit's issuance of the mandate in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank on August 23, 2016. (ECF No. 30.) The Court then lifted that stay on January 19, 2017. (ECF No. 36.)

         Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment (“First MSJ”). (ECF No. 42; see also ECF Nos. 45, 46, 47 (responses and reply).) In response, Beverly argued in relevant part that “any arguments based on Exhibits B, D, H and I to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 42-1 and 42-2] should be stricken and disregarded pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 37(c) for the reason that Plaintiffs have not previously disclosed those documents or the identity of the witness identified therein to Beverly, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26(a)(1).” (ECF No. 45 at 2.) Regarding these exhibits to their First MSJ, Plaintiffs conceded that they failed to disclose the information they included and their corresponding authenticating witnesses during discovery, stating that it was “an oversight” because “when the case was released from its stay in January 2017, Plaintiffs mistakenly believed that these initial disclosures had already been served prior to the stay.” (ECF No. 47 at 7.)

         In light of Plaintiffs' concession, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's First MSJ on August 30, 2018 (the “Hearing”). (ECF No. 55.) At the Hearing, the Court denied the First MSJ without prejudice and gave Beverly more time to conduct discovery regarding Fannie Mae's interest in the Property. (Id.) Upon conclusion of that additional discovery period, Plaintiffs filed the Motion with the Court's leave. (ECF No. 60; see also ECF Nos. 58, 59 (requesting and granting leave to Plaintiffs to file a renewed motion for summary judgment.)

         III. ...


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.