Nationstar Mortg., Llc Vs. Sfr Inv.'S Pool 1, Llc

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 13, 2020
Docket76733
StatusPublished

This text of Nationstar Mortg., Llc Vs. Sfr Inv.'S Pool 1, Llc (Nationstar Mortg., Llc Vs. Sfr Inv.'S Pool 1, Llc) 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
Nationstar Mortg., Llc Vs. Sfr Inv.'S Pool 1, Llc, (Neb. 2020).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, No. 76733 Appellant, vs. FILE SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Respondent. NOV 1 3 2020 ELEABEr l A. E.P.OWN CLER PREME BY DEPUTY CLERX

ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND This is an appeal from a district court order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings in an action to quiet title. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Gloria Sturman, Judge. Reviewing the order de novo, Sadler v. PacifiCare of Nev., Inc., 130 Nev. 990, 993, 340 P.3d 1264, 1266 (2014), we reverse and remand.' The district court denied appellant's motion for leave to file an amended pleading, reasoning that amendment would be futile because 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(12)'s three-year limitation period applies to actions to enforce the Federal Foreclosure Bar. However, we recently held in JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 68 (2020), that 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(12)'s six-year limitation period applies to any action brought to enforce the Federal Foreclosure Bar. Consequently, the district court's legal basis for denying appellant's motion for leave to amend was erroneous. See Anderson v. Mandalay Corp., 131 Nev. 825, 832, 358 P.3d 242, 247 (2015) ("Although we generally review a district court's decision on a motion for leave to amend for abuse of

'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted in this appeal. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A ABP. 20 -4 '52_6 discretion, futility is a question of law reviewed de novo because it is essentially an NRCP 12(b)(5) inquiry, asking whether the plaintiff could plead facts that would entitle her to relief." (internal citation omitted)). We therefore ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

Parra guirre

, J. Hardesty Cadish

cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge Akerman LLP/Las Vegas Kim Gilbert Ebron Fennemore Craig P.C./Reno Eighth District Court Clerk

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nationstar Mortg., Llc Vs. Sfr Inv.'S Pool 1, Llc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nationstar-mortg-llc-vs-sfr-invs-pool-1-llc-nev-2020.