Bank of America, N.A. v. SBH 4 Homeowners' Association

D. Nevada

Bank of America, N.A. v. SBH 4 Homeowners' Association

DecidedDecember 18, 2019

Docket2:16-cv-00487

StatusUnknown

This text of Bank of America, N.A. v. SBH 4 Homeowners' Association (Bank of America, N.A. v. SBH 4 Homeowners' Association) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bank of America, N.A. v. SBH 4 Homeowners' Association, (D. Nev. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:16-cv-00487-GMN-PAL 5 vs. ) ) ORDER 6 SBH 4 HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, et ) 7 al., ) ) 8 Defendants. ) ) 9

10 On April 4, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff Bank of America, 11 N.A., (“Plaintiff”) because, under Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 12 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), the SBH 4 Homeowners’ Association (“HOA”) “foreclosed under a 13 facially unconstitutional notice scheme” and therefore the “foreclosure sale cannot have 14 extinguished” Plaintiff’s deed of trust on the property. (Order 5:21–23, ECF No. 50). The 15 Ninth Circuit has since held, however, that Nevada’s homeowner’s association foreclosure 16 scheme is not facially unconstitutional because the decision in Bourne Valley was based on a 17 construction of Nevada law that the Nevada Supreme Court has since made clear was incorrect. 18 See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 19 2019) (recognizing that Bourne Valley “no longer controls the analysis” in light of SFR 20 Investments Pool1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2018)). Moreover, 21 for orders from this district that relied on Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 22 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), and were thereafter appealed, the Ninth Circuit recently began 23 reversing and remanding such orders in light of Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight 24 Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2019). See, e.g., U.S. Bank, N.A, v. SFR 25 Investments Pool 1, LLC, No. 18-16006, 2019 WL 6817304, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2019). 1 Accordingly, to preserve judicial resources, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s prior Order, (ECF No. 50), is 3 VACATED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty days from the date of 5 this Order to file renewed dispositive motions. 6 The Clerk of Court shall reopen the case and deliver a copy of this Order to the United 7 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Appeal Number 18-16154. 8 9 DATED this __1_8__ day of December, 2019. 10 11 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 12 United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

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

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:16-cv-00487-GMN-PAL 5 vs. ) ) ORDER 6 SBH 4 HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, et ) 7 al., ) ) 8 Defendants. ) ) 9

10 On April 4, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff Bank of America, 11 N.A., (“Plaintiff”) because, under Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 12 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), the SBH 4 Homeowners’ Association (“HOA”) “foreclosed under a 13 facially unconstitutional notice scheme” and therefore the “foreclosure sale cannot have 14 extinguished” Plaintiff’s deed of trust on the property. (Order 5:21–23, ECF No. 50). The 15 Ninth Circuit has since held, however, that Nevada’s homeowner’s association foreclosure 16 scheme is not facially unconstitutional because the decision in Bourne Valley was based on a 17 construction of Nevada law that the Nevada Supreme Court has since made clear was incorrect. 18 See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 19 2019) (recognizing that Bourne Valley “no longer controls the analysis” in light of SFR 20 Investments Pool1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2018)). Moreover, 21 for orders from this district that relied on Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 22 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), and were thereafter appealed, the Ninth Circuit recently began 23 reversing and remanding such orders in light of Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight 24 Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2019). See, e.g., U.S. Bank, N.A, v. SFR 25 Investments Pool 1, LLC, No. 18-16006, 2019 WL 6817304, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2019). 1 Accordingly, to preserve judicial resources, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s prior Order, (ECF No. 50), is 3 VACATED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty days from the date of 5 this Order to file renewed dispositive motions. 6 The Clerk of Court shall reopen the case and deliver a copy of this Order to the United 7 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Appeal Number 18-16154. 8 9 DATED this __1_8__ day of December, 2019. 10 11 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 12 United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bank of America, N.A. v. SBH 4 Homeowners' Association, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-america-na-v-sbh-4-homeowners-association-nvd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack