Tyrone & In-Ching, Llc Vs. Ditech Fin. Llc

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: September 16, 2021
• Docket: 81339
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

TYRONE & IN-CHING, LLC, A No. 81339 CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Appellant, FILED vs. SEP 1 6 2021 DITECH FINANCIAL LLC, F/K/A ELiZABE ROWN GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, A CLE PREME COURT FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY BY CLERK COMPANY, Res ondent.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is an appeal from a district court summary judgment in a quiet title action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; James Crockett, Judge. Appellant Tyrone & In-Ching, LLC, filed a complaint seeking to quiet title to a property it obtained from the purchaser at an HOA foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to NRS Chapter 116. Respondent Ditech Financial LLC, the beneficiary of record on the deed of trust for the property, answered the complaint and included a quiet title counterclaim. Tyrone & In-Ching moved to dismiss the counterclaim, which the district court granted. This court dismissed Ditech's appeal of that order because the district court had neither resolved Tyrone & In-Ching's claims nor properly certified its dismissal order as final pursuant to NRCP 54(b). Ditech Fin. LLC v. Tyrone & In-Ching, LLC, Docket No. 79309 (Order Dismissing Appeal, Jan. 6, 2020).

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

«n 1947A 445 . 2,i - ( 8521 Back in the district court, Ditech moved for summary judgment, asserting that the Federal Foreclosure Bar and tender prevented the district court from quieting title in Tyrone & In-Chines favor. See Saticoy Bay LLC Series 9641 Christine View v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Assn, 134 Nev. 270, 417 P.3d 363 (2018) (discussing the Federal Foreclosure Bar); Bank of Arn., N.A. v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 134 Nev. 604, 427 P.3d 113 (2018) (discussing tender). The district court granted the motion on both bases and, in doing so, expressly rescinded its dismissal order. This appeal followed. On appeal, Tyrone & In-Ching only argues the district court could not grant summary judgment in Ditech's favor when it previously dismissed Ditech's counterclaim with prejudice. We disagree. First, the district court rescinded the dismissal order when granting summary judgment contrary to Tyrone & In-Chines appellate argument. Moreover, the dismissal order only resolved Ditech's counterclaim such that the district court still had to resolve Tyrone & In-Chines quiet title claim. And, because Ditech raised the Federal Foreclosure Bar as an affirmative defense to quieting title in Tyrone & In-Chines favor, the district court did not err by relying on it to resolve the quiet title issue. Tyrone & In-Ching also asserts that the law-of-the-case doctrine required the district court to deny Ditech summary judgment based on the Federal Foreclosure Bar, as it had already dismissed Ditech's similar counterclaim and an appeal occurred. But the law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply here where our dismissal of the prior appeal did not address or decide any issue. See Dictor v. Creative Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 126 Nev. 41, 44, 223 P.3d 332, 334 (2010) (defining the doctrine and holding that "[i]n order for the law-of-the-case doctrine to apply, the appellate court must

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 t 1)47A actually address and decide the issue explicitly or by necessary implication"). And we conclude Tyrone & In-Ching waived any argument challenging the evidence supporting the district court's finding that Fannie Mae owned the underlying loan. See Powell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 127 Nev. 156, 161 n.3, 252 P.3d 668, 672 n.3 (2011) (Issues not raised in an appellant's opening brief are deemed waived."); see also Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) (A point not urged in the trial court . . . is deemed to have been waived and will not be considered on appeal."). Based on the foregoing, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.2

/ ft-LA. eFt., , C.J. Hardesty

Al;i5C.A.1) J. Sr.J. Stiglich

cc: Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court Department 24, Eighth Judicial District Court Hong & Hong Wolfe & Wyman LLP Eighth District Court Clerk

2The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 ith 14-17A ,07414C.