Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Green Valley South Owners Association No. 1

United States District Court, D. Nevada

September 30, 2019



          Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge.

         Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 59), filed by Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Plaintiff). Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 63), to which Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 66).

         Also pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 60), filed by SFR. Plaintiff filed a Response, (ECF No. 62), to which SFR filed a Reply, (ECF No. 67).

         For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and SFR's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This case arises from the foreclosure on real property located at 137 Coventry Drive, Henderson, NV 89074 (the “Property”). (See Compl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 1). In 2007, Lloyd Q. Allen (“Borrower”) obtained a loan from First Franklin Financial Corp. (“Franklin”) in the amount of $303, 000.00, secured by a deed of trust recorded on April 23, 2007. (See Deed of Trust, ECF No. 59-1). The deed of trust initially identified Franklin as the beneficiary. (Id.). U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) later received the interest through an assignment. (Assignment to U.S. Bank, ECF No. 59-2). U.S. Bank then assigned its interest to Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”). (Assignment to BANA, ECF No. 59-3). After the events giving rise to the instant dispute, BANA assigned its interest to Plaintiff. (See Assignment to Nationstar, ECF No. 59-4).

         On August 2, 2010, upon Borrower's failure to stay current on his loan obligations, Green Valley South Owners Association No. 1 (“HOA”) initiated foreclosure proceedings on the Property through its agent, Nevada Association Services, Inc. (“NAS”). (See Notice of Delinquent Assessment Lien, ECF No. 59-5); (see also Notice of Default and Election to Sell, ECF No. 59-6). On June 30, 2011, NAS recorded a notice of trustee's sale, scheduling a public auction to take place on July 22, 2011. (See Notice of Foreclosure Sale, ECF No. 59-7).

         On February 3, 2011, following the first notice of sale, BANA, through counsel, sent NAS a letter requesting a ledger identifying the superpriority portion of HOA's lien so that BANA could satisfy the balance. (See Accounting Request, Ex. 2 to Miles Bauer Aff., ECF No. 59-8). NAS responded by providing a statement of account reflecting an annual assessment of $98. (NAS Resp. Letter, Ex. 3 to Miles Bauer Aff., ECF No. 59-8). Based upon the record, BANA's counsel calculated HOA's superpriority lien amount-nine months of common assessments (three-fourths, or nine out of twelve months' worth, of the $98 annual amount)- and sent NAS a check for the total, $73.50, which NAS rejected. (See Tender Letter, Ex. 4 to Miles Bauer Aff., ECF No. 59-8); (see also Confirmation of Receipt, Ex. 5 to Miles Bauer Aff.). NAS proceeded with foreclosure and sold the Property to SFR for $4, 900.00 on September 7, 2012. (See Foreclosure Deed, ECF No. 59-10).

         Plaintiff filed the instant action on April 18, 2016, asserting the following causes of action arising from HOA's foreclosure and subsequent sale of the Property: (1) quiet title; (2) breach of NRS 116.1113; (3) wrongful foreclosure; and (4) injunctive relief. (Compl. ¶¶ 32-73, ECF No. 1). Both Plaintiff and SFR filed competing summary-judgment Motions with respect to Plaintiff's claims, (ECF Nos. 59-60).


         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary adjudication 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). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. “Summary judgment is inappropriate if reasonable jurors, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, could return a verdict in the nonmoving party's favor.” Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P'ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 1999). A principal purpose of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).

         In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burden-shifting analysis. “When the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue material to its case.” C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). In contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an essential element of the nonmoving party's case; or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party's case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and the court need not consider the nonmoving party's evidence. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159-60 (1970).

         If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. 1987). In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by relying solely on conclusory allegations that are unsupported by factual data. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the opposition must go beyond the assertions and allegations of the pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing competent evidence that shows a genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324.

         At summary judgment, a court's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. The evidence of the nonmovant is “to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is ...

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.