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. Aliante Master Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

September 4, 2019

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff,
v.
ALIANTE MASTER ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants. AND ALL RELATED CASES

          ORDER

          MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. SUMMARY

         This case arises from a foreclosure sale of a property to satisfy a homeowners' association lien. Before the Court are two motions: (1) Plaintiff/Counter Defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s (“BANA”) motion for partial summary judgment on its quiet title/declaratory relief claim and on Defendant/Counter Claimant Saticoy Bay LLC Series 3237 Perching Bird's (“Saticoy Bay”) counterclaims (ECF No. 58); and (2) Defendant Aliante Master Association's (“HOA”) motion for summary judgment on BANA's claims (ECF No. 57).[1] As further explained below, the Court finds that BANA's tender preserved its deed of trust, and will thus grant BANA's motion, and deny the HOA's motion. The Court will also order a response from the HOA as to the status of its crossclaims against Nevada Association Services, Inc. in light of this order.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise indicated.[2]

         Michelle and Jeff Ritter (“Borrowers”) purchased real property located at 3237 Perching Bird Lane, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89084 (“Property”) within the HOA with a $170, 848 loan (“Loan”) in 2010. (ECF No. 58-1.) The Loan was secured by a first deed of trust (“DOT”). (See id.) Following an assignment, BANA is the beneficiary under the DOT. (ECF No. 58-3.)

         The Borrowers failed to pay HOA assessments, and the HOA recorded the following notices through its agent, Defendant Nevada Association Services, Inc. (“NAS”): (1) a notice of delinquent assessment lien on July 8, 2011 (ECF No. 58-4); and (2) a notice of default and election to sell on August 29, 2011 (ECF No. 58-5).

         On October 27, 2011, BANA's agent (the law firm of Miles, Bauer, Bergstrom & Winters, LLP (“Miles Bauer”)) sent a letter to NAS asking it to identify the superpriority amount of the HOA lien.[3] (ECF No. 58-7 at 3, 6-7.) NAS did not respond. (Id. at 3.) BANA calculated the superpriority amount as $351 (the total of nine months of assessments) based on the ledger provided for a different property within the HOA and sent a check for that amount to NAS on December 1, 2011.[4] (Id. at 3, 9, 13-15, 17.) NAS returned the check to Miles Bauer. (Id. at 4, 9, 19.)

         The HOA then proceeded with the foreclosure sale (“HOA Sale”). The HOA recorded a notice of foreclosure sale on July 2, 2014. (ECF No. 58-6.) The HOA sold the Property on July 25, 2014, to Saticoy Bay, for $33, 000. (ECF No. 58-10.)

         BANA asserts the following claims: (1) quiet title/declaratory judgment against all Defendants; (2) breach of NRS § 116.1113 against the HOA and NAS; (3) wrongful foreclosure against the HOA and NAS; and (4) injunctive relief against Saticoy Bay. (ECF No. 1 at 6-13.) In its prayer for relief, BANA primarily requests an order declaring that Saticoy Bay purchased the Property subject to BANA's DOT. (Id. at 13-14.) Saticoy Bay asserts counterclaims against BANA for quiet title and declaratory relief. (ECF No. 11 at 5-6.)

         The HOA asserts crossclaims against Defendant NAS for: (1) implied indemnity; (2) contribution; (3) apportionment; (4) express indemnity; (5) breach of contract; and (6) declaratory relief. (ECF No. 19 at 11-14.) The record does not reflect that NAS filed a response to these crossclaims.

         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. See Kaiser Cement Corp. v. Fischbach & 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. See 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 ...


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.