Livelife Llc Vs. Bay Point Capital Partners, Lp (Nrap 5)

486 P.3d 1290
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedMay 21, 2021
Docket82744
StatusPublished

This text of 486 P.3d 1290 (Livelife Llc Vs. Bay Point Capital Partners, Lp (Nrap 5)) 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
Livelife Llc Vs. Bay Point Capital Partners, Lp (Nrap 5), 486 P.3d 1290 (Neb. 2021).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LIVELIFE, LLC, No. 82744 Appellant, vs. FILED BAY POINT CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP, Respondent. MAY 2 1 2021 ELIZA2F r:1 A. BROWN CLERK 01:44 UPREME COI P. Byer 1 DEPUII CLERK ORDER DECLINING CERTIFIED QUESTIO This matter involves a legal question certified to this court, under NRAP 5, by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada. Specifically, the Bankruptcy Court has certified the following question to this court: If a parcel of Nevada real property is encumbered by two deeds of trust, the property owner wishes to refinance only the senior deed of trust, the property owner and the holder of the junior deed of trust sign a written Subordination Agreement before a Notary Public that describes the subject real property, identifies the property owner by name as the "Grantor," and the Subordination Agreement is recorded by the proper County Recorder before the refinancing transaction takes place, does the Subordination Agreement itself constitute a mortgage lien on the subject real estate as a matter of Nevada law? Having considered this question, the Bankruptcy Court's certification order, and the documents submitted in conjunction with the order, we are not persuaded that answering the certified question will necessarily be determinative of the dispute between appellant LiveLife and respondent Bay Point. See NRAP 5(a); Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc. v. Ricci, 122 Nev. 746, 749-51, 137 P.3d 1161, 1163-64 (2006) (discussing the factors this court considers when determining whether to accept a certified question, including whether answering the question "may be determinative of the cause then pendine (internal quotation marks omitted)). In particular, it appears that LiveLife is arguing that, in addition to the subordination agreement constituting a valid mortgage, LiveLife is also entitled to an equitable mortgage or equitable subrogation. If either of those issues are resolved in LiveLife's favor, it appears that the certified question may be rendered moot. Accordingly, we decline to accept the certified question at this time. It is so ORDERED.

, C.J. Hardesty

Alicy:„.0 , J. Parraguirre Stiglich

PAJ Ctili , J. , J. Cadish Silver

Piekt.t. , J. , J. Pickering my Herndon

cc: Gerrard Cox Larsen Armstrong Teasdale, LLP/Las Vegas John C. Allerding John F. Isbell Clerk, United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada

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

Related

Volvo Cars of North America, Inc. v. Ricci
137 P.3d 1161 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
486 P.3d 1290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/livelife-llc-vs-bay-point-capital-partners-lp-nrap-5-nev-2021.