928 Country Back Tr. Vs. Bank Of America, N.A.

Nevada Supreme Court

928 Country Back Tr. Vs. Bank Of America, N.A.

DecidedApril 9, 2021

Docket79543

StatusPublished

This text of 928 Country Back Tr. Vs. Bank Of America, N.A. (928 Country Back Tr. Vs. Bank Of America, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

928 Country Back Tr. Vs. Bank Of America, N.A., (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

928 COUNTRY BACK TRUST, A No. 79543 NEVADA TRUST, Appellant, FILED VS. APR 0 9 2021 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., A ELIZABETH A. BROWN NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY S Res ondent. DEPUTY CLERKr ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT AND REMANDING This is an appeal from a district court final judgment following a bench trial in an action to quiet title. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, Judge. A panel of this court originally issued a disposition resolving this matter. 928 Country Back Tr. v. Bank of Am., N.A., Docket No. 79543 (Order of Reversal and Remand, Sept. 18, 2020). On March 5, 2021, we granted respondent Bank of America's petition for en bane reconsideration of that decision. Having reconsidered the matter, we vacate the panel's September 18, 2020, disposition and issue this disposition in its place. In 7510 Perla Del Mar Avenue Trust v. Bank of America, N.A., 136 Nev. 62, 63, 458 P.3d 348, 349 (2020) (Perla), we held that a formal superpriority tender is excused "when evidence shows that the party entitled to payment had a known policy of rejecting such payments." When the panel rendered its previous disposition, it relied on Bank of Arnerica, N.A. v. Thomas Jessup, LLC Series VII, Docket No. 73785 (Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding, May 7, 2020), to conclude that the evidence in this case was necessarily insufficient to satisfy Perla's standard. In light of the arguments raised in Bank of America's petition for en bane reconsideration, we conclude that the district court must consider

-10279 the evidence presented under the Perla standard, which the district court did not have at its disposal when it rendered its judgment.1 We leave to the district court's discretion as to how that should be done. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

Hardesty

, J. Parraguirre Stiglich 0

i ) 6,K1 , J. L e.:44.6.4_ , J. Cadish Silver

A (1 —qt, J. , J• Herndon

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge The Law Office of Mike Beede, PLLC Hong & Hong Akerman LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

1We decline to address Bank of America's arguments that the district court did not address in the first instance. See 9352 Cranesbill Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 136 Nev. 76, 82, 459 P.3d 227, 232 (2020) (declining to address an issue that the district court did not resolve). SUPREME COURT Of NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

928 COUNTRY BACK TRUST, A No. 79543 NEVADA TRUST, Appellant, FILED VS. APR 0 9 2021 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., A ELIZABETH A. BROWN NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY S Res ondent. DEPUTY CLERKr ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT AND REMANDING This is an appeal from a district court final judgment following a bench trial in an action to quiet title. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, Judge. A panel of this court originally issued a disposition resolving this matter. 928 Country Back Tr. v. Bank of Am., N.A., Docket No. 79543 (Order of Reversal and Remand, Sept. 18, 2020). On March 5, 2021, we granted respondent Bank of America's petition for en bane reconsideration of that decision. Having reconsidered the matter, we vacate the panel's September 18, 2020, disposition and issue this disposition in its place. In 7510 Perla Del Mar Avenue Trust v. Bank of America, N.A., 136 Nev. 62, 63, 458 P.3d 348, 349 (2020) (Perla), we held that a formal superpriority tender is excused "when evidence shows that the party entitled to payment had a known policy of rejecting such payments." When the panel rendered its previous disposition, it relied on Bank of Arnerica, N.A. v. Thomas Jessup, LLC Series VII, Docket No. 73785 (Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding, May 7, 2020), to conclude that the evidence in this case was necessarily insufficient to satisfy Perla's standard. In light of the arguments raised in Bank of America's petition for en bane reconsideration, we conclude that the district court must consider

-10279 the evidence presented under the Perla standard, which the district court did not have at its disposal when it rendered its judgment.1 We leave to the district court's discretion as to how that should be done. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

Hardesty

, J. Parraguirre Stiglich 0

i ) 6,K1 , J. L e.:44.6.4_ , J. Cadish Silver

A (1 —qt, J. , J• Herndon

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge The Law Office of Mike Beede, PLLC Hong & Hong Akerman LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

1We decline to address Bank of America's arguments that the district court did not address in the first instance. See 9352 Cranesbill Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 136 Nev. 76, 82, 459 P.3d 227, 232 (2020) (declining to address an issue that the district court did not resolve). SUPREME COURT Of NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

928 Country Back Tr. Vs. Bank Of America, N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/928-country-back-tr-vs-bank-of-america-na-nev-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack