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.

U.S. Bank, National Association v. TRP Fund V, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 14, 2019

U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 2007, GSAMP TRUST 2007-NC1, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-NC1, Plaintiff,
v.
TRP FUND V, LLC; TROVARE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; and ABSOLUTE COLLECTION SERVICES, LLC, 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 three cross motions for summary judgment filed by Defendant Trovare Homeowners Association (“HOA”) (ECF No. 66); Plaintiff U.S. Bank (ECF No. 67); and Defendant TRP Fund V, LLC (“TRP”) (ECF No. 69). The Court has reviewed the parties' responses (ECF Nos. 68, 70, 72, 73) and replies (ECF Nos. 71, 74, 75). Because the Court agrees with TRP that the foreclosure sale at issue extinguished U.S. Bank's interest in the property, the Court grants TRP's and the HOA's motions for summary judgment and denies U.S. Bank's motion for summary judgment.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise indicated.

         A. Deed of Trust History

         Gumercindo Favela, Leonor Favela, and Luis Favela (“Borrowers”) purchased property (“Property”) located within the HOA[1] at 5525 Hidden Rainbow St., North Las Vegas, NV 89031 on November 22, 2006. (ECF No. 67-1 at 2-4, 22.) The Borrowers purchased the Property with a loan (“Loan”) in the amount of $276, 250 secured by a first deed of trust (“DOT”). (Id. at 2-3.) The parties do not seem to dispute that U.S. Bank owns the DOT. Leonor Favela became the sole owner of the Property on September 10, 2013. (ECF No. 67-3 at 2-4.)

         B. HOA Lien and Foreclosure

         The HOA's agent-Defendant Absolute Collection Services (“ACS”)-recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien, notice of default and election to sell, and notice of sale against the Property between January and June 2014. (ECF Nos. 67-4; 67-5; 67-6.) TRP purchased the Property at the foreclosure sale (“HOA Sale”) on November 18, 2014, for $96, 000. (ECF No. 67-7 at 2-4.)

         C. Complaint

         U.S. Bank asserts the following claims in the Complaint: (1) quiet title/declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, NRS § 30.010 et seq., and NRS § 40.010 against all defendants (ECF No. 1 at 10); (2) declaratory relief under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments against all Defendants (id. at 12); (3) quiet title under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments against TRP (id. at 13); (4) permanent and preliminary injunction against TRP (id. at 14); and (5) unjust enrichment against TRP (id. at 15).

         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.