Centeno v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: March 18, 2016
• Docket: 67365
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MARTIN CENTENO, No. 67365 Appellant, vs. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., FILED Respondent. MAR 1 8 2016 TRACE K LINDEMAN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER VACATING AND REMANDING This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a motion for a preliminary injunction in a quiet title action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kathleen E. Delaney, Judge. The district court denied appellant's request for a preliminary injunction, reasoning that appellant lacked a likelihood of success on the merits of his quiet title claim because (1) the Supremacy Clause prevented the HOA foreclosure sale from extinguishing respondent's deed of trust, which secured a federally insured loan; and (2) the purchase price at the HOA sale was commercially unreasonable. Having considered the parties' arguments that were made in district court, see Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981), we conclude that the district court underestimated appellant's likelihood of success on the merits and therefore abused its discretion in denying injunctive relief) See Boulder Oaks Cmty. Ass'n v. B & J Andrews Enters., LLC, 125 Nev. 397, 403, 215 P.3d 27, 31(2009) (recognizing that a district court may abuse its discretion in denying

'We disagree with respondent's suggestion that this appeal is moot, as appellant's request for injunctive relief sought more than to simply SUPREME COURT prevent respondent from selling the subject property at foreclosure. OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A e - 00 72 injunctive relief if its decision is based on an error of law). In particular, the district court summarily based its Supremacy Clause analysis on non- binding, non-uniform precedent. Compare Washington & Sandhi11 Homeowners Ass'n v.• Bank of Am., 2014 WL 4798565, at *6 (D. Nev. Sept. 25, 2014), with Freedom Mortg. Corp. v. Las Vegas Dev. Grp., 106 F. Supp. 3d 1174, 1183-86 (D. Nev. 2015). 2 Similarly, this court's reaffirmation in Shadow Wood Homeowners' Ass'n v. New York Community Bancorp, Inc., 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 5, P.3d (2016), that a low sales price is not a basis for voiding a foreclosure sale absent "fraud, unfairness, or oppression," undermines the second basis for the district court's decision. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

/ n fres.si ,J. Hardesty

J.

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Martin Centeno Smith Larsen & Wixom Ballard Spahr, LLP Eighth District Court Clerk

We recognize that the Freedom Mortgage decision was not issued 2 until after the district court entered the order being challenged in this appeal. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A