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. Sunrise Ridge Master Homeowners Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 1, 2019

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiffs,
v.
SUNRISE RIDGE MASTER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendant(s).

          ORDER

         On April 3, 2019, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the court's order entering summary judgment against plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”). Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit's directive, the court hereby adjudicates this matter consistent with Bank of America, N.A. v. Arlington West Twilight Homeowners Association, 920 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Arlington West”).

         I. Introduction

         This action involves the foreclosure and sale of the real property at 3984 Meadow Foxtail Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada. (ECF No. 1). BANA confirms that Sunrise Ridge recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien on August 31, 2010. Id. Next, BANA indicates that Sunrise Ridge recorded a notice of default and election to sell on November 9, 2010. Id. Finally, Sunrise Ridge recorded a notice of trustee's sale on June 21, 2011. Id. BANA alleges that the amount owned on each of these notices did not specify the superpriority lien amount owed. Id.

         BANA's predecessor-in-interest offered to tender the superpriority lien amount to Sunrise Ridge, based upon its own calculations, but Sunrise Ridge rejected the $378.00 offered amount. Id. The relevant tender letter indicated that the offer amount was “non-negotiable” and that “any endorsement of [the] cashier's check . . . will be strictly construed as an unconditional acceptance on your part of the facts stated herein and express agreement that . . . financial obligations towards the HOA . . . have now been ‘paid in full.'” (ECF No. 1-1 at 5).

         BANA's complaint alleges four claims: (1) quiet title/declaratory judgment against all defendants; (2) breach of NRS 116.1113 against Sunrise Ridge and Nevada Association Services (“NAS”); (3) wrongful foreclosure against Sunrise Ridge and NAS; and (4) injunctive relief against Saticoy. (ECF No. 1).

         Specifically, BANA supports its quiet title/declaratory judgment claim by arguing that NRS Chapter 116 violates BANA's procedural due process right, the recorded notices vaguely described the super-priority amount owed on the HOA lien, tender for the HOA lien was improperly rejected, and by challenging the foreclosure sale buyers' bona fide purchaser statuses. Id.

         On March 17, 2016, Saticoy filed a counterclaim to quiet title in the property and to request declaratory relief. (ECF No. 8). Both Sunrise Ridge and the other defendants' respective motions for summary judgment seek a finding that the sale extinguished BANA's interest in the property. (ECF Nos. 35, 37).

         On March 10, 2017, the court dismissed BANA's breach of NRS 116.1113 and wrongful foreclosure claims. (ECF No. 51). On May 5, 2017, the court entered summary judgment, holding that the foreclosure sale extinguished the deed of trust. (ECF No. 55). On June 5, 2017, BANA appealed to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 57). On April 3, 2019, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded, directing the court to adjudicates this matter consistent with Arlington West. (ECF No. 56). The court now adjudicates this action consistent with the Ninth Circuit's mandate.

         II. Legal Standard

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow summary judgment 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). 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).

         For purposes of summary judgment, disputed factual issues should be construed in favor of the non-moving party. Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990). However, to be entitled to a denial of summary judgment, the non-moving party must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id.

         In determining summary judgment, the 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.” C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, “[i]n 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.” Id.

         By contrast, when the non-moving 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 non-moving party's case; or (2) by demonstrating that the non-moving 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. See 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 non-moving party's evidence. See 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. See 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 ...


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.