Trashed Home Corp. Vs. Bank Of America, N.A.

Nevada Supreme Court

Trashed Home Corp. Vs. Bank Of America, N.A.

DecidedApril 9, 2021

Docket78923

StatusPublished

This text of Trashed Home Corp. Vs. Bank Of America, N.A. (Trashed Home Corp. Vs. Bank Of America, N.A.) 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

Trashed Home Corp. Vs. Bank Of America, N.A., (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

TRASHED HOME CORPORATION, A NEVADA CORPORATION, Appellant, No7923 ED vs. APR 0 9 2021 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ELIZABFB4 A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT Res o ondent. BY tYcLi oeli ti I tri e ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT AND REMANDING This is an appeal from a district court final judgment following a bench trial in an action to quiet title. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Susan Johnson, Judge. In rendering its judgment, the district court relied on a panel opinion from this court in Bank of Arnerica, N.A. v. Thomas Jessup, LLC Series VII, 135 Nev. 42, 435 P.3d 1217 (2019), which has since been vacated by the en banc court. We thereafter issued an opinion in 7510 Perla Del Mar Avenue Trust v. Bank of America, N.A., 136 Nev. 62, 63, 458 P.3d 348, 349 (2020) (Perla), in which we held that a formal superpriority tender is excused "when evidence shows that the party entitled to payment had a known policy of rejecting such payments." Accordingly, the basis for the district court's judgment, while understandable, is no longer legally valid. We therefore vacate and remand the judgment in favor of respondent Bank of America. On remand, the district court should consider the evidence presented under the Perla standard, which the district court did not have at its disposal when it

1Consistent with the Nevada Court of Appeals' initial resolution of this appeal, we are not persuaded by any of Bank of America's alternative arguments in support of affirmance.

,11-40,2 8 rendered its judgment. We leave to the district court's discretion as to how that should be done. Relatedly, we clarify that our unpublished disposition in Bank of America, N.A. v. Thomas Jessup, LLC Series VII, Docket No. 73785 (Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding, May 7, 2020), was based on the specific evidence and testimony presented in that case and that Absolute Collection Service's response letter is not necessarily insufficient to satisfy Perla's standard depending on what other evidence and testimony is presented. In light of the foregoing, we ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

/ C.J. Hardesty

Ale;-$C4-.0 , J. Stiglich

, J. Silver

_

Herndon

cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge Hong & Hong Akerman LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A alger4

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

TRASHED HOME CORPORATION, A NEVADA CORPORATION, Appellant, No7923 ED vs. APR 0 9 2021 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ELIZABFB4 A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT Res o ondent. BY tYcLi oeli ti I tri e ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT AND REMANDING This is an appeal from a district court final judgment following a bench trial in an action to quiet title. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Susan Johnson, Judge. In rendering its judgment, the district court relied on a panel opinion from this court in Bank of Arnerica, N.A. v. Thomas Jessup, LLC Series VII, 135 Nev. 42, 435 P.3d 1217 (2019), which has since been vacated by the en banc court. We thereafter issued an opinion in 7510 Perla Del Mar Avenue Trust v. Bank of America, N.A., 136 Nev. 62, 63, 458 P.3d 348, 349 (2020) (Perla), in which we held that a formal superpriority tender is excused "when evidence shows that the party entitled to payment had a known policy of rejecting such payments." Accordingly, the basis for the district court's judgment, while understandable, is no longer legally valid. We therefore vacate and remand the judgment in favor of respondent Bank of America. On remand, the district court should consider the evidence presented under the Perla standard, which the district court did not have at its disposal when it

1Consistent with the Nevada Court of Appeals' initial resolution of this appeal, we are not persuaded by any of Bank of America's alternative arguments in support of affirmance.

,11-40,2 8 rendered its judgment. We leave to the district court's discretion as to how that should be done. Relatedly, we clarify that our unpublished disposition in Bank of America, N.A. v. Thomas Jessup, LLC Series VII, Docket No. 73785 (Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding, May 7, 2020), was based on the specific evidence and testimony presented in that case and that Absolute Collection Service's response letter is not necessarily insufficient to satisfy Perla's standard depending on what other evidence and testimony is presented. In light of the foregoing, we ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

/ C.J. Hardesty

Ale;-$C4-.0 , J. Stiglich

, J. Silver

_

Herndon

cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge Hong & Hong Akerman LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A alger4

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Trashed Home Corp. Vs. Bank Of America, N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trashed-home-corp-vs-bank-of-america-na-nev-2021.