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. Green Valley South Owners Association No. 1

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 13, 2019

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, F/K/A COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP, Plaintiff,
v.
GREEN VALLEY SOUTH OWNERS ASSOCIATION NO. 1; DAISY TRUST; NEVADA ASSOCIATION SERVICES, INC., Defendants.

          ORDER

          MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. SUMMARY

         This 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.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise indicated.

         Dennis L. Scott (“Borrower”) purchased the real property (“Property”) located within the HOA[1] 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.)

         An assignment transferring the DOT to BANA was recorded on October 5, 2011. (ECF No. 68-4 at 2-3.)

         The 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.)

         BANA, 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.)

         NAS 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 at 2.)

         The only remaining claim in this action is BANA's claim for quiet title/declaratory relief against all Defendants. (See ECF No. 66 at 1.)

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         “The 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).

         The 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. ...


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.