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. Sunset Ridge Limited Homeowners Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 29, 2019

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff,
v.
SUNSET RIDGE LIMITED HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge

         Pending before the Court is the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 58), filed by Bank of America, N.A. (“Plaintiff”). Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) and Defendant Sunset Ridge Limited Homeowners Association's (“HOA”) filed Responses, (ECF Nos. 68, 69), and Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 71).

         Also pending before the Court is SFR's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 59). Plaintiff filed a Response, (ECF No. 67), and SFR filed a Reply, (ECF No. 72).

         Also pending before the Court is HOA's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 60). Plaintiff filed a Response, (ECF No. 66), and HOA filed a Reply, (ECF No. 70).

         Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority, (ECF No. 75). SFR filed a Response, (ECF No. 76), and Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 79).[1]

         I. BACKGROUND

         This case arises from the non-judicial foreclosure on real property located at 10108 Glen Aire Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 (the “Property”). (See Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 1); (See Deed of Trust, Ex. A to Pl.'s Mot. Partial Summ. J. (“MPSJ”), ECF No. 58-1). In 2008, Paul Wyklige and Lin Teng (collectively “Borrowers”) purchased the Property by way of a loan in the amount of $242, 705.00, secured by a deed of trust (the “DOT”). (Id.). Countrywide KB Home Loans, LLC served as the original lender for the DOT, and Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. was the nominee-beneficiary on its behalf. (Id.). The DOT was assigned to BAC Home Loans Servicing LP (“BAC”) on May 18, 2011. (Assignment, Ex. C to Pl.'s MPSJ, ECF No. 58-3). BAC subsequently merged with Plaintiff. (Merger Certificate, Ex. D to Pl.'s MPSJ, ECF No. 58-4).

         Upon the Borrowers' failure to stay current on payment obligations, Assessment Management Services (“AMS”) on behalf of HOA, initiated foreclosure proceedings by recording a notice of delinquent assessment lien and a subsequent notice of default and election to sell. (See Notice of Delinquent Assessment Lien, Ex. E to Pl.'s MPSJ, ECF No. 58-5); (Notice of Default, Ex. F to Pl.'s MPSJ, ECF No. 58-6).

         On September 12, 2011, the law firm Miles, Bauer, Bergstrom & Winters LLP (“Miles Bauer”), on Plaintiff's behalf, sent a letter to HOA and AMS, requesting a ledger with the amount of HOA's superpriority lien. (See Request for Accounting, Ex. 1 to Miles Aff., ECF No. 58-8). AMS accordingly responded with a ledger. (See Statement of Account, Ex. 2 to Miles Aff., ECF No. 58-8). Miles Bauer, on behalf of Plaintiff, subsequently delivered a check to AMS for $198.00, based on the provided ledger, purportedly representing nine months' worth of HOA assessments. (See Tender Letter, Ex. 3 to Miles Aff., ECF No. 58-8).

         Nevertheless, AMS proceeded with the foreclosure by recording a notice of foreclosure sale and foreclosing on the Property. (See Notice of Foreclosure Sale, Ex. G to Pl.'s MPSJ, ECF No. 58-7). On August 21, 2013, SFR recorded a foreclosure deed, stating it purchased the Property for $18, 000. (Foreclosure Deed, Ex. I to Pl.'s MPSJ, ECF No. 58-9).

         On April 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed its Complaint including the following claims (1) quiet title and declaratory relief against all defendants; (2) breach of NRS 116.1113 against HOA and AMS; (3) wrongful foreclosure against HOA and AMS; and (4) injunctive relief against SFR. (Compl. ¶¶ 29-78). SFR subsequently filed crossclaims and counterclaims against Plaintiff and Borrowers, respectively, for (1) declaratory relief and quiet title, and (2) injunctive relief. (See Answer ¶¶ 39-53, ECF No. 27).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary adjudication when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Id. “Summary judgment is inappropriate if reasonable jurors, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, could return a verdict in the nonmoving party's favor.” Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P'ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 1999)). A principal purpose of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).

         In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burden-shifting analysis. “When the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue material to its case.” C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). In contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an essential element of the nonmoving party's case; or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party's case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323- 24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and the court need not consider the nonmoving party's evidence. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159-60 (1970).

         If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. 1987). In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by relying solely on conclusory allegations that are unsupported by factual data. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the opposition must go beyond the assertions and allegations of the pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing competent evidence that shows a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324. At summary judgment, a court's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. The evidence of the nonmovant is “to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. See Id. at 249-50.

         III. DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on its declaratory relief claim against SFR asserting that the DOT survived because the foreclosure was conducted pursuant to a facially unconstitutional statute. (Pl.'s MPSJ 6:3-13:9, ECF No. 58). Plaintiff further argues, inter alia, that summary judgment is warranted because Plaintiff properly tendered the superpriority portion of HOA's lien prior to the Property's foreclosure sale. (Id. 13:10-17:27).

         SFR moves for summary judgment on its declaratory and injunctive relief claims against Plaintiff and Borrowers, arguing that Bourne Valley v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 832 F.3d 1154, (9th Cir. 2016), has been superseded and was never dispositive. (SFR's MSJ 7:4-10:25, ECF No. 59). SFR further contends that Plaintiff lacks standing to enforce ...


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.