From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saticoy Bay LLC v. Bank of Am., N.A.

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Oct 29, 2020
No. 80025-COA (Nev. App. Oct. 29, 2020)

Opinion

No. 80025-COA

10-29-2020

SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 6902 EMERALD SPRINGS, Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Respondent.


ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Saticoy Bay LLC Series 6902 Emerald Springs (Saticoy Bay) appeals from a district court order granting a motion for summary judgment in a quiet title action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Gloria Sturman, Judge.

The original owner of the subject property failed to make periodic payments to her homeowners' association (HOA). The HOA recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien and later a notice of default and election to sell to collect on the past due assessments and other fees pursuant to NRS Chapter 116. Saticoy Bay purchased the property at the resulting foreclosure sale and filed the underlying action seeking to quiet title against respondent Bank of America, N.A. (BOA), the beneficiary of the first deed of trust on the property. BOA filed an answer and later moved for summary judgment, which the district granted, finding that the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) owned the underlying loan such that 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) (the Federal Foreclosure Bar) prevented the foreclosure sale from extinguishing BOA's deed of trust. This appeal followed.

This court reviews a district court's order granting summary judgment de novo. Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005). Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings and all other evidence on file demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. When deciding a summary judgment motion, all evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. General allegations and conclusory statements do not create genuine issues of fact. Id. at 731, 121 P.3d at 1030-31.

A review of the record from the underlying proceeding reveals that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that BOA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 729, 121 P.3d at 1029. We reject Saticoy Bay's arguments that Freddie Mac was required to be the beneficiary of the deed of trust or otherwise record its interest in order to avail itself of the Federal Foreclosure Bar. See Daisy Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 135 Nev. 230, 233-34, 445 P.3d 846, 849 (2019) (holding that a deed of trust need not be assigned to a regulated entity in order for it to own the secured loan—meaning that Nevada's recording statutes are not implicated—where the deed of trust beneficiary is an agent of the note holder). Moreover, we conclude that the declarations and business records produced by BOA, including the authorizations in the Freddie Mac Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide generally applicable to Freddie Mac's loan servicers, were sufficient to prove Freddie Mac's ownership of the note and the agency relationship between it and BOA in the absence of contrary evidence. See id. at 234-36, 445 P.3d at 849-51 (affirming on similar evidence and concluding that neither the loan servicing agreement nor the original promissory note must be produced for the Federal Foreclosure Bar to apply).

Accordingly, the district court properly concluded that the Federal Foreclosure Bar prevented extinguishment of BOA's deed of trust and that Saticoy Bay took the property subject to it. See Saticoy Bay LLC Series 9641 Christine View v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 134 Nev. 270, 273-74, 417 P.3d 363, 367-68 (2018) (holding that the Federal Foreclosure Bar preempts NRS 116.3116 such that it prevents extinguishment of the property interests of regulated entities under FHFA conservatorship without affirmative FHFA consent). Thus, given the foregoing, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Insofar as the parties raise arguments that are not specifically addressed in this order, we have considered the same and conclude that they either do not present a basis for relief or need not be reached given the disposition of this appeal.

/s/_________, C.J.

Gibbons

/s/_________, J.

Tao

/s/_________, J.

Bulla cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge

Law Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd.

Akerman LLP/Las Vegas

Fennemore Craig P.C./Reno

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Saticoy Bay LLC v. Bank of Am., N.A.

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Oct 29, 2020
No. 80025-COA (Nev. App. Oct. 29, 2020)
Case details for

Saticoy Bay LLC v. Bank of Am., N.A.

Case Details

Full title:SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 6902 EMERALD SPRINGS, Appellant, v. BANK OF…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Oct 29, 2020

Citations

No. 80025-COA (Nev. App. Oct. 29, 2020)