U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ND, A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellant,
RESOURCES GROUP, LLC, Respondent.
from a judgment certified as final under NRCP 54(b) in a
judicial foreclosure/quiet title action. Eighth Judicial
District Court, Clark County; Timothy C. Williams, Judge.
Adams and Thomas Neal Beckom, Las Vegas; McCarthy &
Holthus, LLP, and Kristin A. Schuler-Hintz, Las Vegas, for
Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd., and Michael F. Bohn,
Henderson, for Respondent.
PICKERING, PARRAGUIRRE and CADISH, JJ.
a homeowners' association (HOA) lien foreclosure dispute.
The HOA did not give the first deed of trust holder the
notice of default Nevada law requires to foreclose a
superpriority lien. Despite this failure, the district court
held that the lien foreclosure sale extinguished the first
deed of trust and quieted title in favor of the foreclosure
sale buyer's successor. The district court found the
first deed of trust holder was not entitled to notice at the
address specified in the deed of trust, which was error. We
vacate and remand for the district court to decide whether,
given this notice defect, the first deed of trust holder
deserves relief from the sale.
U.S. Bank held a note secured by a publicly recorded first
deed of trust on a home in a Nevada common interest
community. The homeowner/borrower defaulted on his HOA dues,
whereupon the HOA initiated lien foreclosure proceedings
under NRS Chapter 116. The HOA's agent, Alessi & Koenig,
gave the homeowner proper notice of default and notice of
sale and attempted to give U.S. Bank notice of default and
notice of sale as well. But Alessi & Koenig misread U.S.
Bank's deed of trust and sent the notice of default to
another, unaffiliated entity, which evidently did not forward
it to U.S. Bank. As a result, U.S. Bank did not receive the
notice of default. Alessi & Koenig's records suggest
it mailed the notice of sale, as distinguished from the
notice of default, to U.S. Bank at the address specified for
it in the deed of trust, but U.S. Bank's files do not
show that it received either the notice of default or the
notice of sale.
& Koenig set the HOA lien foreclosure sale to occur 33
days after it recorded the notice of sale. When no one
appeared at the sale, Alessi & Koenig orally continued it
for approximately 60 days. Neither the homeowner nor U.S.
Bank attended the rescheduled sale. Respondent Resources
Group, LLC's principal, Iyad Eddie Haddad, acquired the
property at the rescheduled sale for $5, 331. The district
court did not make a finding as to the property's fair
market value, but the record suggests the bid price
represented 10% to 15% of the property's fair market
value. Haddad initially took title in the name of a trust he
had created to acquire this particular property, then had the
trust transfer the property to Resources Group.
homeowner passed away, and his estate defaulted on the j loan
the U.S. Bank deed of trust secured. Several months after the
HOA lien foreclosure sale, U.S. Bank commenced judicial
foreclosure proceedings against the homeowner's estate on
its deed of trust. Later, after it discovered the HOA sale,
U.S. Bank added Resources Group as a defendant. Asserting
that the HOA lien foreclosure sale had extinguished U.S.
Bank's first deed of trust, Resources Group answered and
counterclaimed for a judgment quieting title in itself.
district court conducted a bench trial and ruled for
Resources Group. It held that the HOA lien foreclosure sale
extinguished U.S. Bank's deed of trust, leaving U.S. Bank
nothing to judicially foreclose. The district court reasoned
that U.S. Bank was not entitled to notice of default because
it had not requested it from the HOA and that, alternatively,
Alessi & Koenig gave adequate notice, even though the
notice did not reach U.S. Bank. U.S. Bank appeals.
Bank presses us to invalidate the HOA foreclosure sale
because the person conducting the sale, Alessi & Koenig,
failed to mail it i the notice of default at the address
specified for it in its deed of trust as NRS 116.31168 and
NRS 107.090 require. U.S. Bank further argues that the notice
defect renders the sale void under Title Insurance &
Trust Co. v. Chicago Title Insurance Co.,97 Nev. 523,
634 P.2d 1216 (1981), or at least voidable under Golden
v. Tomiyasu,79 Nev. 503, 387 P.2d 989 (1963), and its
progeny. We review the district court's legal conclusions
de novo but give deference to its factual findings ...