U.S. Bank Nat'L Ass'N Vs. Sfr Inv.'S Pool 1, Llc

Nevada Supreme Court

U.S. Bank Nat'L Ass'N Vs. Sfr Inv.'S Pool 1, Llc

DecidedOctober 24, 2019

Docket76066

StatusPublished

This text of U.S. Bank Nat'L Ass'N Vs. Sfr Inv.'S Pool 1, Llc (U.S. Bank Nat'L Ass'N 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

U.S. Bank Nat'L Ass'N Vs. Sfr Inv.'S Pool 1, Llc, (Neb. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, No. 76066 AS TRUSTEE FOR BAFC 2006-1, A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellant, vs. FILED SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, A OCT 2 it 2019 NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY BROWN EL. COMPANY, CLE RiÌLË COURT . •BY Res • ondent. DEPUTY CUERK

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is an appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment in an action to quiet title. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mark B. Bailus, Judge. Reviewing the summary judgment de novo, Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005), we affirm.1 In SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 135 Nev Adv. Op. 45, at 7 (2019), this court recognized generally that obtaining a retroactive annulment of a bankruptcy stay validates acts that would otherwise have been void. Accordingly, the district court here correctly determined that the retroactive annulment of the bankruptcy stay validated the foreclosure notices that may have otherwise been issued in violation of the stay. The district court therefore correctly determined that the HOA foreclosure sale complied with NRS Chapter 116 and was effective to extinguish appellant's first deed of trust. Although appellant suggests that issuing the foreclosure notices in violation of the automatic stay is

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

,0) 447A .4031, M - I/3 97( sufficient to set aside the sale on equitable grounds, SFR Investments rejected that same argument, reasoning that issuing foreclosure notices in violation of the automatic stay, in and of itself, is not sufficient evidence of fraud, unfairness, or oppression to justify setting aside the sale on equitable grounds. Id. at 9. The district court in this case expressly found that appellant presented no evidence of fraud, unfairness, or oppression, and appellant has not identified any such evidence in the record. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.2

C.J. GibboTis

C6j4.644r7 1.17%: , Sr. J. Parraguirre Douglas

cc: Hon. Mark B. Bailus, District Judge Janet Trost, Settlement Judge Malcolm Cisneros\Las Vegas Kim Gilbert Ebron Eighth District Court Clerk

•

2The Honorable Michael Douglas, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

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

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, No. 76066 AS TRUSTEE FOR BAFC 2006-1, A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellant, vs. FILED SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, A OCT 2 it 2019 NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY BROWN EL. COMPANY, CLE RiÌLË COURT . •BY Res • ondent. DEPUTY CUERK

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is an appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment in an action to quiet title. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mark B. Bailus, Judge. Reviewing the summary judgment de novo, Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005), we affirm.1 In SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 135 Nev Adv. Op. 45, at 7 (2019), this court recognized generally that obtaining a retroactive annulment of a bankruptcy stay validates acts that would otherwise have been void. Accordingly, the district court here correctly determined that the retroactive annulment of the bankruptcy stay validated the foreclosure notices that may have otherwise been issued in violation of the stay. The district court therefore correctly determined that the HOA foreclosure sale complied with NRS Chapter 116 and was effective to extinguish appellant's first deed of trust. Although appellant suggests that issuing the foreclosure notices in violation of the automatic stay is

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

,0) 447A .4031, M - I/3 97( sufficient to set aside the sale on equitable grounds, SFR Investments rejected that same argument, reasoning that issuing foreclosure notices in violation of the automatic stay, in and of itself, is not sufficient evidence of fraud, unfairness, or oppression to justify setting aside the sale on equitable grounds. Id. at 9. The district court in this case expressly found that appellant presented no evidence of fraud, unfairness, or oppression, and appellant has not identified any such evidence in the record. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.2

C.J. GibboTis

C6j4.644r7 1.17%: , Sr. J. Parraguirre Douglas

cc: Hon. Mark B. Bailus, District Judge Janet Trost, Settlement Judge Malcolm Cisneros\Las Vegas Kim Gilbert Ebron Eighth District Court Clerk

•

2The Honorable Michael Douglas, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

U.S. Bank Nat'L Ass'N Vs. Sfr Inv.'S Pool 1, Llc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-bank-natl-assn-vs-sfr-invs-pool-1-llc-nev-2019.