PROPERTIES PLUS INVESTMENTS LLC v. BANK OF AMERICA BAC LP (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Properties Plus Investments, LLC (PPI), appeals from a district court order granting summary judgment, certified as final pursuant to NRCP 54(b), in a quiet title action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; David M. Jones, Judge.

The original owner of the subject property failed to make periodic payments to her homeowners’ association (HOA). The HOA recorded a notice of delinquent assessment lien and later a notice of default and election to sell to collect on the past due assessments and other fees pursuant to NRS Chapter 116. Prior to the sale, respondent Bank of America, N.A. (BOA)—the holder of the first deed of trust on the property—tendered payment to the HOA foreclosure agent for nine months of past due assessments, but the agent rejected the tender and proceeded with its foreclosure sale, at which PPI purchased the property. PPI initiated the underlying action seeking to quiet title to the property, and BOA counterclaimed seeking the same. BOA eventually moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted, finding that the tender satisfied the superpriority portion of the HOA's lien such that the property remained subject to BOA's deed of trust. This appeal followed.

This court reviews a district court's order granting summary judgment de novo. Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005). Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings and all other evidence on file demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. When deciding a summary judgment motion, all evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. General allegations and conclusory statements do not create genuine issues of fact. Id. at 731, 121 P.3d at 1030-31.

Here, the district court correctly found that the tender of nine months of past due assessments satisfied the superpriority lien such that PPI took the property subject to BOA's deed of trust. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 134 Nev. 604, 605, 427 P.3d 113, 116 (2018). We reject PPI's argument that the tender letter accompanying the check contained impermissible conditions because it supposedly misstated the law pertaining to maintenance or nuisance abatement charges. The letter did not address such charges at all, and there is no indication that they were part of the HOA's lien in this case. Cf. Bank of Am., 134 Nev. at 607-08, 427 P.3d at 118 (concluding that a materially similar tender letter was not impermissibly conditional and noting that “the HOA did not indicate that the property had any charges for maintenance or nuisance abatement”). Thus, in light of the foregoing, we conclude that no genuine issue of material fact exists to prevent summary judgment in favor of BOA, see Wood, 121 Nev. at 729, 121 P.3d at 1029, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   Given our disposition of this appeal, we need not address respondent's remaining arguments.