The Bank of New York Mellon v. 886 Park Walk Trust

Ninth Circuit

The Bank of New York Mellon v. 886 Park Walk Trust

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 13, 2020

Docket19-16281

StatusUnpublished

This text of The Bank of New York Mellon v. 886 Park Walk Trust (The Bank of New York Mellon v. 886 Park Walk Trust) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Bank of New York Mellon v. 886 Park Walk Trust, (9th Cir. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, No. 19-16281 FKA Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of The CWABS, Inc., D.C. No. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-4, 2:17-cv-03084-MMD-NJK

Plaintiff-Appellee, MEMORANDUM* v.

886 PARK WALK TRUST,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

OAK PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; ABSOLUTE COLLECTION SERVICES, LLC,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 9, 2020** Seattle, Washington

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: HAWKINS, D.M. FISHER,*** and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

886 Park Walk Trust (the “Trust”) challenges the district court’s adverse grant

of summary judgment declaring that the Trust purchased property located at 886

Park Walk, Las Vegas, Nevada subject to a deed of trust held by the Bank of New

York Mellon (“BNY”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

The Trust’s sole contention on appeal is that BNY’s claim is barred by a three-

year statute of limitations. The Trust concedes, however, that it failed to raise its

statute of limitations defense in district court. We may consider an issue raised for

the first time on appeal under certain “exceptional circumstances,” AlohaCare v.

Hawaii, Dep’t of Human Servs., 572 F.3d 740, 744–45 (9th Cir. 2009), but this case

does not present such circumstances.

AFFIRMED.

*** The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

2 19-16281

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