United States District Court, D. Nevada
M Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Judge
before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider, (ECF No. 93),
filed by Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.
(“BANA”). Defendants Azure Manor/Rancho de Paz
Homeowners Association (“HOA”) and SFR
Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) (collectively
“Defendants”) filed Responses, (ECF Nos. 97, 98),
to which BANA filed Replies, (ECF Nos. 100-01).
reasons discussed below, BANA's Motion to Reconsider is
quiet title action arises from the non-judicial foreclosure
on real property located at 2820 Tilten Kilt Avenue, North
Las Vegas, Nevada 89081 (the “Property”).
(See Deed of Trust, ECF No. 63-1). In 2006, Charles
G. Campbell (“Borrower”) financed his purchase of
the Property by way of a $323, 000.00 loan secured by a deed
of trust. (Id.). BANA, as lender and beneficiary,
recorded the deed of trust on May 8, 2007. (Id.).
Upon Borrower's failure to pay all amounts due to HOA,
Alessi & Koenig (“A&K”), on behalf of
HOA, initiated foreclosure proceedings. (See Notice
of Lien, ECF No. 63-2); (see also Notice of Default,
ECF No. 63-3).
to the instant Motion,  A&K recorded a notice of
foreclosure sale on August 2, 2012, setting a sale date for
September 5, 2012. (See Notice of Sale, ECF No.
63-5). BANA mailed a letter to A&K on August 31, and sent
a fax on September 4, requesting the amount of HOA's
superpriority lien. (See Accounting Request, ECF No.
63-8); (see also Second Accounting Request, Ex. A to
Mot. to Recons. at 4, ECF No. 93-1).
September 5, 2012, A&K conducted the foreclosure sale, at
which the Property reverted to HOA for a credit bid of $7,
695.22. (See Trustee's Deed Upon Sale, ECF No.
63-6). Following the sale, on September 12, 2012, A&K
responded to BANA with a ledger providing the outstanding
fees, interest, and costs. (A&K Ledger, ECF No. 75-5).
A&K also sent BANA an email the same day, stating
“the nine-month super-priority is not triggered until
the beneficiary under the first deed of trust
forecloses.” (A&K Email Correspondence, Ex. A to
Mot. to Recons. at 5, ECF No. 93-1). On March 11, 2013,
A&K sold the Property to SFR through a quitclaim deed.
(See Quitclaim Deed, ECF No. 63-7).
February 14, 2019, the Court issued its decision on the
parties' summary-judgment motions. (See Order,
ECF No. 90). The Court held that BANA was not entitled to
summary judgment on its quiet title claim because, among
other things, BANA failed to tender the HOA superpriority
amount ahead of the foreclosure sale. (Id.
8:17-16:12). The Court rejected BANA's argument that
A&K's “alleged refusal to cooperate-by not
responding to BANA's accounting request-constitutes an
affirmative effort to prevent BANA's tender, ” such
that BANA's attempt to tender was enough to save its deed
of trust from extinguishment. (Id. 10:3- 11).
Finding BANA's remaining quiet-title arguments
unavailing, the Court granted Defendants' motions for
summary judgment. (Id. 8:17-16:12, 17:2-9).
thereafter, the Nevada Supreme Court handed down its decision
in Bank of Am., N.A. v. Thomas Jessup, LLC Series
VII, 435 P.3d 1217 (Nev. 2019), and BANA filed the
instant Motion to Reconsider, (ECF No. 93).
court has inherent power to entertain motions for
reconsideration of interlocutory orders. See Amarel v.
Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th Cir. 1996)
(“[I]nterlocutory orders . . . are subject to
modification by the district judge at any time prior to final
judgment.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
The standard governing reconsideration of an interlocutory
order is the same as the standards governing motions to alter
or amend final judgments under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). Motions for reconsideration are
disfavored, and “should not be granted, absent highly
unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented
with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if
there is an intervening change in the controlling law.”
McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1254 (9th Cir.
1999) (per curiam) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
moves for reconsideration on the basis that Jessup
constitutes an intervening change in controlling law which
entitles BANA to judgment in its favor on its quiet title
claim. (Mot. to Recons. 2:8-17, ECF No. 93).
general rule, a first deed of trust holder may pay off the
superpriority portion of an HOA lien to prevent the
foreclosure sale from extinguishing the deed of trust.
See NRS 116.31166(1); see also SFR Invs. Pool 1
v. U.S. Bank, 334 P.3d 408, 414 (Nev. 2014).
“Valid tender requires payment in full, ” and
must be either unconditional or limited to “conditions
on which the tendering ...