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.

Laurent v. Bush

United States District Court, D. Nevada

September 29, 2019

PHILIPPE LAURENT, Plaintiff,
v.
ARTHUR V. BUSH; LORA V. BUSH; CITIBANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF THE PHHMC MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATE SERIES 2007-6; PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. CITIBANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF THE PHHMC MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATE SERIES 2007-6; PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; Counterclaimants,
v.
PHILIPPE LAURENT, Counterdefendant.

          ORDER

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before the Court are three motions: Defendants PHH Mortgage Corporation (“PHH”), CitiBank N.A. as Trustee for the Registered Holders of PHHMC Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 2007-6 (“CitiBank”), and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems’ (“MERS”) (collectively “Defendants”) motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff Phillippe Laurent’s motion for summary judgment, and Defendants’ motion for leave to file a supplement to its motion for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 69, 73, 84. For the following reasons, the Court denies Defendants’ motions and grants Laurent’s motion.

         II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Laurent sued Defendants on November 12, 2015 in state court, asserting a claim for declaratory relief or to quiet title and a claim for a preliminary and permanent injunction. ECF No. 1-1 at 3. Laurent seeks declaratory relief that a property he purchased at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale was not subject to Plaintiffs’ deed of trust. The matter was removed to this Court on December 30, 2015. ECF No. 1. Defendants answered the complaint on January 7, 2016 and asserted a counterclaim for unjust enrichment. ECF No. 5. Defendants amended the answer and the counterclaims on August 9, 2016, adding claims for declaratory relief and for quiet title. ECF No. 27.

         The matter was stayed and all pending motions were denied without prejudice on July 7, 2017, pending the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision on the certified question in SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248, 1251 (Nev. 2018). ECF No. 58. The stay was lifted on November 21, 2018. ECF No. 66. Defendants now move for summary judgment. ECF No. 69. A response and a reply were filed. ECF Nos. 72, 79. Laurent also moves for summary judgment. ECF No. 73. A response was filed. ECF Nos. 78.

         III. Undisputed Facts

         The Court finds the following facts to be undisputed. On September 4, 2007, Arthur V. Bush and Lora V. Bush purchased property at 2837 Maryland Hills Drive, Henderson, Nevada 89052 (the “property”) by obtaining a loan from PHH. The property sits in a neighborhood governed by the Bella Vista Homeowners Association (“HOA”), which required the Bushes to pay monthly assessments to the HOA. The loan was secured by a deed of trust that named MERS as the nominee-beneficiary. MERS assigned the deed of trust to CitiBank on June 29, 2012.

         The Bushes fell behind on their HOA assessments. Red Rock Financial Services (“Red Rock”), as the HOA’s agent, recorded a lien for delinquent assessments against the property on March 13, 2012. On May 22, 2012, Red Rock then recorded a notice of default and election to sell pursuant to the lien for delinquent assessments. Red Rock recorded a notice of foreclosure sale, setting a sale date of January 17, 2013, on December 27, 2012. Red Rock recorded the notices pursuant to Chapter 116 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”).

         On August 14, 2013, a foreclosure deed was recorded against the property. The foreclosure deed states that Red Rock, as the homeowners’ association’s agent, sold without warranty “all of its rights, title and interest” in the property to Laurent for $22, 700 on May 15, 2013.

         IV. Disputed Facts

         The parties dispute only the legal consequences of the facts.

         V. LEGAL STANDARD

         Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322(1986). When considering the propriety of summary judgment, the court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2014). If the movant has carried its burden, the nonmoving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts …. Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (alteration in ...


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.