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.

Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC v. RLP Mercer Valley, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 2, 2019

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
RLP MERCER VALLEY, LLC, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          JAMES C. MAHAN UNITED'STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Presently before the court is plaintiff Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC's (“Carrington”) motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 98). Defendant Shadow Springs Community Association (“Shadow Springs”) filed a response. (ECF No. 104). Carrington did not file a reply and the time to do so has passed.

         Also before the court is Carrington's motion for attorney's fees. (ECF No. 99). Shadow Spring filed a response (ECF No. 107), to which Carrington replied (ECF No. 110).

         I. Facts

         This case involves a dispute over real property located at 6232 Mercer Valley Street, North Las Vegas, Nevada, 89081 (the “property”). (ECF No. 1)

         On July 8, 2008, Francisco and Esperanza De Mesa (the “De Mesas”) purchased the property. (ECF No. 69). The De Mesas financed the purchase with a loan in the amount of $184, 110.00 from Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. (“Taylor”). (ECF No. 58-2). Taylor secured the loan with a deed of trust, which it recorded July 24, 2008. Id. The deed of trust identified Taylor as the lender, Equity Title of Nevada as the trustee, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as the beneficiary as nominee for the lender and lender's successors and assigns. Id.

         On August 12, 2012, a corporate assignment of deed of trust was recorded, whereby MERS assigned all beneficial interest in the deed of trust and note to Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide Home Loan Servicing, LP (“BAC Home Loans”). (ECF No. 69). On February 3, 2015, an assignment of deed of trust was recorded, whereby BANA as successor by merger to BAC Home Loans, assigned all beneficial interest in the deed of trust to Carrington. Id On February 18, 2010, Shadow Springs, through its agent defendant Red Rock Financial Services, LLC (“Red Rock”), recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien (the “lien”) against the property for the De Mesas failure to pay Shadow Springs in the amount of $788.60. (ECF No. 69). On April 2, 2010, Shadow Springs recorded a notice of default and election to sell pursuant to the lien, stating an amount due of $1, 731.41. Id.

         On June 4, 2010, Carrington's predecessor in interest requested from Shadow Springs the superpriority amount of the lien. (ECF No. 70). On June 21, 2010, Shadow Springs provided a payoff ledger of the De Mesas' delinquent payment history. (ECF No. 89-4). The payoff ledger shows an outstanding balance of $2, 197.95 but does not state what portion of the balance constitutes the superpriority portion of the lien. Id. The ledger also does not include charges for maintenance and nuisance abatement. Id. The ledger does state, however, that Shadow Springs' monthly assessments against the property were $52.00. Id.

         Carrington's predecessor in interest used the ledger to calculate the superpriority amount as $468.00, the sum of nine months of assessments. Id. On July 16, 2010, Carrington's predecessor in interest sent a letter and a check in that amount to Shadow Springs. Id. The letter explained that the check was the sum of nine months of common assessments and intended to pay off the superpriority portion of the lien. Id. Shadow Springs rejected the check without explanation. (ECF Nos. 69, 70).

         On January 11, 2013, Shadow Springs recorded a notice of foreclosure against the property. (ECF No. 58-6). On February 6, 2013, Shadow Springs sold the property in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale to defendant RLP Mercer Valley, LLC (“RLP”) in exchange for $7, 000.00. (ECF No. 58-8). On February 13, 2013, RLP recorded the foreclosure deed with the Clark County recorder's office. Id.

         On April 13, 2015, plaintiff filed its original complaint in this action. (ECF No. 1). On April 24, 2017, plaintiff filed its first amended complaint. (ECF No. 58). The amended complaint alleges the following claims: (1) quiet title/declaratory relief pursuant to U.S.C. § 2201, NRS 30.010, and NRS 40.010 against all defendants; (2) permanent injunction against Carrington; (3) wrongful/defective foreclosure against RLP; (4) breach of contract against the Shadow Springs; and (5) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against the Shadow Springs. Id.

         On June 2, 2017, Shadow Springs filed crossclaims against Red Rock. (ECF No. 64). The crossclaims allege the following causes of action: (1) implied indemnity; (2) contribution; (3) apportionment; (4) express indemnity; (5) equitable indemnity; (6) breach of contract; and (7) declaratory relief. Id.

         On July 3, 2018, the court denied Carrington's motion for summary judgment, partially on the grounds that Carrington did not tender the superpriority amount of the lien. (ECF No. 74). On December 26, 2018, Carrington moved for reconsideration. (ECF No. 88). On February 8, 2019, the court granted Carrington's motion in light of an intervening change in controlling law. (ECF No. 96). The next day the clerk entered judgment in accordance with the court's order. (ECF No. 97).

         Now, Carrington moves again for reconsideration, requesting that the court amend its February 8, 2019, order and vacate the clerk's judgment. (ECF No. 98). Carrington also moves for attorney's fees. (ECF No. 99).

         II. Legal Standard

         a. Reconsideration

         A motion for reconsideration “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). ‚ÄúReconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an ...


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.