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. Giavanna Homeowners Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 28, 2019

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff,
v.
GIAVANNA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC; and SBW INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendants.

          ORDER

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Four contested motions come before the Court: (1) Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC's Motion to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 22-24, 30; (2) Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 34, 38, 42, 46; (3) Defendant SFR's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 35, 39, 47; and (4) Defendant Giavanna Homeowners Association's (the “HOA”) Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 37, 40, 41.

         II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         This matter arises from a nonjudicial foreclosure sale conducted under Chapter 116 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) in September 2012. See ECF No. 1. Nearly six years after the foreclosure sale, Plaintiff sued Defendants on February 15, 2018, seeking an order to void the foreclosure sale or to declare that Plaintiff's interest in the at-issue property was not extinguished by the foreclosure sale. Id. In its Complaint, Plaintiff asserts three claims: quiet title, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. Id.

         Plaintiff brings its quiet title claim under the following: (1) the due process clauses in the U.S. and the Nevada constitutions; (2) the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution; (3) NRS Chapter 116; (4) the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC&Rs) governing the at-issue property; and (5) principles of equity. In its declaratory relief claim, Plaintiff seeks an order that it may judicially foreclose on the property under NRS 107 et seq. Plaintiff also asserts an injunctive relief claim, asking the Court to prohibit Defendants from encumbering the property and to require Defendant SFR to pay all taxes, insurance fees, and homeowners' associations dues during the pendency of this action.

         While Defendants SFR and the HOA either answered the Complaint or filed motions evidencing their participation in this matter, see ECF Nos. 17 and 22, Defendant SBW Investments, LLC has not yet participated, see docket generally. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Intent to Default Defendant SBW on August 29, 2018. ECF No. 32. Default judgment has not yet been executed. See docket generally.

         The parties completed mediation through the Nevada Real Estate Division (“NRED”) on January 14, 2019. ECF No. 45-1 (indicating Defendants refused to participate and settlement was not reached). Now, Plaintiff and Defendants SFR and the HOA each seek to resolve this matter through dispositive motions. ECF Nos. 22, 34, 35, 37.

         III. DISCUSSION

         The Court first resolves the pending Motion to Dismiss. Because the Motion to Dismiss results in the dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims, the Court denies the three pending Motions for Summary Judgment without prejudice as moot without further discussion.

         a. Factual Allegations

         In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that two nonparties purchased the property by obtaining a loan from nonparty CTX Mortgage Company, LLC. The loan was secured by a note and deed of trust (“senior deed of trust”), which were recorded on August 27, 2008.

         Beginning on October 25, 2010, Defendant HOA initiated the process to conduct a nonjudicial foreclosure sale under NRS Chapter 116 by filing a Notice of Delinquent Assessment. After filing additional notices as required by NRS Chapter 116, the HOA ultimately foreclosed on the property on September 18, 2012 and recorded a corresponding Trustee's Deed Upon Sale on September 19, 2012.

         Plaintiff alleges that the nonjudicial foreclosure sale did not extinguish the senior deed of trust, which Plaintiff acquired through multiple assignments. Plaintiff alleges that the deed of trust beneficiary has a right to judicially or nonjudicially foreclose on a deed of trust and that a ten-year statute of limitations, at minimum, applies to such an action. Plaintiff also alleges ...


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.