United States District Court, D. Nevada
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, F/K/A COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP, Plaintiff,
GREEN VALLEY SOUTH OWNERS ASSOCIATION NO. 1; DAISY TRUST; NEVADA ASSOCIATION SERVICES, INC., Defendants.
MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
dispute arises from the foreclosure sale of property to
satisfy a homeowners' association lien. Before the Court
are the following motions: (1) Defendant Daisy Trust's
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 67); (2) Plaintiff Bank
of America, N.A.'s (“BANA”) motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 68; ECF No. 70 (errata)); and (3)
Defendant Green Valley South Owners Association No. 1's
(“HOA”) motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69).
The Court has reviewed the parties' responses (ECF Nos.
71-74) and replies (ECF Nos. 77-79). Because the Court agrees
with BANA that it properly tendered the superpriority amount,
the Court grants BANA's motion for summary judgment.
following facts are undisputed unless otherwise indicated.
L. Scott (“Borrower”) purchased the real property
(“Property”) located within the HOA at 137 Elegante
Way, Henderson, NV 89074 with a loan (“Loan”) in
the amount of $179, 188 that was secured by a first deed of
trust (“DOT”) recorded June 27, 2008. (ECF No.
68-1 at 2-4, 13.)
assignment transferring the DOT to BANA was recorded on
October 5, 2011. (ECF No. 68-4 at 2-3.)
HOA, through its agent Defendant Nevada Association Services
(“NAS”), recorded a notice of delinquent
assessment lien against the Property on August 23, 2011. (ECF
No. 68-5 at 2.) The HOA's agent recorded a notice of
default and election to sell on November 18, 2011. (ECF No.
68-6 at 2-3.)
through counsel Miles Bauer, requested the superpriority
amount of the HOA's lien and offered to pay the same on
December 19, 2011. (ECF No. 68-7 at 13-14.) The HOA and NAS
refused to respond and failed to provide the superpriority
amount or any ledger by which BANA could calculate the
superpriority amount. (Id. at 11.) Nevertheless,
BANA calculated the superpriority amount as $882 and tendered
a check for that amount to the HOA on February 2, 2012.
(Id. at 19-21.) The HOA received the letter and
rejected the tender. (Id. at 11, 23, 25, 27.) No.
charges were incurred for maintenance or nuisance abatement.
(See ECF No. 68-8 at 8.)
proceeded with the foreclosure process after rejecting
BANA's tender. The HOA recorded a notice of foreclosure
sale (“HOA Sale”) on April 23, 2012. (ECF No.
68-11 at 2-3.) The HOA sold the Property to Daisy Trust at
the HOA Sale on August 31, 2012, for $3, 555. (ECF No. 68-12
only remaining claim in this action is BANA's claim for
quiet title/declaratory relief against all Defendants.
(See ECF No. 66 at 1.)
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). Where reasonable
minds could differ on the material facts at issue, however,
summary judgment is not appropriate. See Id. at
250-51. “The amount of evidence necessary to raise a
genuine issue of material fact is enough ‘to require a
jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions
of the truth at trial.'” Aydin Corp. v. Loral
Corp., 718 F.2d 897, 902 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting
First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S.
253, 288-89 (1968)). In evaluating a summary judgment motion,
a court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Kaiser Cement
Corp. v. Fishbach & Moore, Inc., 793 F.2d 1100, 1103
(9th Cir. 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. ...