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. Mountain Gate Homeowners' Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 15, 2019

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff,
v.
MOUNTAIN GATE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          JAMES C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On April 3, 2019, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the court's order entering summary judgment against plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”). Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit's directive, the court hereby adjudicates this matter consistent with Bank of America, N.A. v. Arlington West Twilight Homeowners Association, No. 17-15796, 2019 WL 1461317 (9th Cir. April 3, 2019) (“Arlington”).

         I. Facts

         This action arises from a dispute over real property located at 6408 Hillside Brook Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89014 (the “property”). (ECF No. 1).

         Laura Greco purchased the property on or about November 11, 2009. (ECF No. 65). Greco financed the purchase with a loan in the amount of $93, 279.00 from BANA. Id. BANA secured the loan with a deed of trust, which names BANA as the lender, Reconstrust Company, N.A. 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 October 1, 2010, defendant Mountain Gate Homeowners' Association (“Mountain Gate”), through its agent defendant Hampton & Hampton Collections, LLC (“H&H”), recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien (“the lien”) against the property for Greco's failure to pay Mountain Gate in the amount of $998.00. (ECF No. 65-3). On February 28, 2011, Mountain Gate recorded a notice of default and election to sell pursuant to the lien, stating that the amount due was $957.00 as of February 24, 2011. (ECF No. 65-4).

         On March 14, 2012, BANA acquired all beneficial interest in the deed of trust via an assignment, which BANA recorded with the Clark County recorder's office. (ECF No. 65-2).

         In an attempt to exercise its right of redemption, BANA requested from Mountain Gate the superpriority amount of the lien. (ECF No. 65-7). In response, Mountain Gate provided a payoff ledger showing nine months of delinquent assessments from January 2014 to September 2014. Id. The payoff ledger also shows an outstanding balance of $765.00 and does not include charges for maintenance and nuisance abatement. Id.

         BANA used Mountain Gate's ledger to determine that the superpriority amount was $765.00. Id. On April 10, 2014, BANA sent a letter and a check for that amount to Mountain Gate. 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. Mountain Gate accepted the payment. Id.

         On July 9, 2014, Mountain Gate recorded a notice of trustee's sale against the property. (ECF No. 65-6). On August 20, 2013, Mountain Gate sold the property in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale to defendant Saticoy Bay LLC Series 6408 Hillside Brook (“Saticoy Bay”) in exchange for $21, 100.00. (ECF No. 65-8). On December 3, 2013, Saticoy Bay recorded the trustee's deed upon sale with the Clark County recorder's office. Id.

         On March 10, 2016, BANA initiated this action, asserting four causes of action: (1) quiet title/declaratory judgment against all defendants; (2) breach of NRS 116.1113 against H&H and Mountain Gate; (3) wrongful foreclosure against H&H and Mountain Gate; and (4) injunctive relief against Saticoy Bay. (ECF No. 1). On April 1, 2016, Saticoy Bay filed a counterclaim against BANA for quiet tittle and declaratory relief. (ECF No. 6).

         On April 12, 2017, the court entered summary judgment, holding that the foreclosure sale extinguished the deed of trust. (ECF No. 83). That same day, the clerk entered judgment. (ECF No. 84).

         On May 2, 2017, BANA appealed to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 52). On April 3, 2019, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded, directing the court to commence proceedings consistent with Arlington. (ECF No. 58). Now, the court adjudicates the merits of this action.

         II. Legal Standard

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow summary judgment 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 a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). 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).

         For purposes of summary judgment, disputed factual issues should be construed in favor of the non-moving party. Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990). However, to be entitled to a denial of summary judgment, the nonmoving party must “set ...


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.