United States District Court, D. Nevada
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC dba MR. COOPER, Plaintiff,
STONEFIELD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION and RODNEY COFFMAN, Defendants.
MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
action arises from a non-judicial foreclosure sale
(“HOA Sale”) of real property located at 8670
Kelpie Court, Reno, NV 89506 (“Property”) to
satisfy a homeowners' association lien. (ECF No. 43-1 at
5.) Before the Court is Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba
Mr. Cooper's (“Nationstar”) motion for
summary judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 43). Because
the relevant deed of trust (“DOT”) is a protected
interest of the Federal National Mortgage Association
(“Fannie Mae”), the Court finds 12 U.S.C. §
4617(j)(3) (“Federal Foreclosure Bar”) preserved
the DOT despite the HOA Sale. Accordingly, the Court will
grant the Motion, and declares that Fannie Mae's DOT
continues to encumber the Property.
Rodney Coffman financed the purchase of the Property with a
$240, 000 loan (“Loan”) from Bank of America,
N.A. (“BANA”) in October 2007. (ECF No. 21-1 at
4.) In November 2007, Fannie Mae acquired the Loan from BANA
and thus the note ("Note") and DOT it secured. (ECF
No. 21-5 at 3, 7.) Fannie Mae was thereafter placed under the
Federal housing Finance Agency's ("FHFA")
conservatorship in 2008 and has been in conservatorship since.
See, e.g., FHFA, History of Fannie Mae & Freddie
Mac Conservatorships, http://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship.
February 24, 2011, BANA recorded a corporate assignment of
the DOT to BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP ("BAC").
(ECF No. 43-3.) BANA succeeded BAC's interest in the DOT
by merger. (ECF No. 43-4.) On June 17, 2013, BANA recorded an
assignment of the DOT to Nationstar. (ECF No. 43-5.)
Coffman's default on paying HOA assessments, Stonefield
Homeowners Association ("HOA") recorded a Notice of
Delinquent Assessment Lien, followed by a Notice of Default
and Election to Sell, and a Notice of Foreclosure Sale
against the Property. (ECF Nos. 43-7, 43-8, 43-9.) The HOA
sold the Property at the HOA Sale on September 4, 2013, for
$240. (ECF No. 43-10.) The HOA then transferred the Property
to Coffman via a quitclaim deed in October 2016. (ECF No.
43-11 at 2.)
Mae maintained ownership of the DOT at the time of the HOA
Sale and Nationstar was its servicer. (ECF No. 43-2 at 2-3,
7, 13.) At no time did the FHFA consent to the HOA Sale
extinguishing or foreclosing Fannie Mae's interest in the
Property. (See ECF No. 43-12 (FHFA's Statement on HOA
Super-Priority Lien Foreclosures.)
Mae sold its interest in the Note and DOT on December 22,
2016, but repurchased the Note and DOT in September 2017.
(ECF No. 21 at 2; ECF No. 21-4; ECF No. 43-2 at 4, 10.)
purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials
when there is no dispute as to the facts before the
court.” Nw. Motorcycle Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't
of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994). Summary
judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, the discovery and
disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits “show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986). An issue is “genuine” if there
is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable
fact-finder could find for the nonmoving party and a dispute
is “material” if it could affect the outcome of
the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
moving party bears the burden of showing that there are no
genuine issues of material fact. Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib.
Corp., 693 F.2d 870, 883 (9th Cir. 1982). Once the
moving party satisfies Rule 56's requirements, the burden
shifts to the party resisting the motion to “set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. The
nonmoving party “may not rely on denials in the
pleadings but must produce specific evidence, through
affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show that the
dispute exists, ” Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc.,
929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991), and “must do more
than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to
the material facts.” Orr v. Bank of Am., NT &
SA, 285 F.3d 764, 783 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)). “The mere existence of a
scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's
position will be insufficient.” Anderson, 477
U.S. at 252. Moreover, a court views all facts and draws all
inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party. Kaiser Cement Corp. v. Fischbach & Moore,
Inc., 793 F.2d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 1986).
Court has previously noted “[t]he Federal Foreclosure
Bar prohibits nonconsensual foreclosure of Federal Housing
Finance Agency (“FHFA”) assets.”
Springland Vill. Homeowners Ass'n. v. Pearman,
No. 3:16-cv-00423-MMD-WGC, 2018 WL 357853, at *2 (D. Nev.
Jan. 10, 2018) (citing Berezovsky v. Moniz, 869 F.3d
923, 925 (9th Cir. 2017)). “As a result, the Federal
Foreclosure Bar generally protects Fannie Mae's property
interests from extinguishment if Fannie Mae was under
FHFA's conservatorship, possessed an ...