BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING LP v. NV REAL PROPERTY LLC (2018)

ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT AND REMANDING

This is an appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment in an action to quiet title. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Valerie Adair, Judge. Reviewing the summary judgment de novo, Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005), we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Appellant BAC Home Loans argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment without allowing a continuance to conduct discovery related to equitable grounds to set aside the foreclosure sale.¹ We agree. Of relevance, Shadow Wood Homeowners Assn v. New York Community Bancorp, Inc., 132 Nev., Adv. Op 5, 366 P.3d 1105, 1109 (2016), explained that the conclusive effect of the recitals included in a trustee's deed of sale, as provided in NRS 116.31166, does not eliminate equitable relief when the party challenging the sale can show that the sale was affected by fraud, unfairness, or oppression. See Nationstar Mortg. v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 2227 Shadow Canyon, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 91, 406 P.3d 641, 647–49 (2017). BAC's NRCP 56(f) declaration sought discovery into issues implicating fraud, unfairness, or oppression. Because Nationstar and Shadow Wood were decided after the district court granted summary judgment, we conclude that a remand is proper in order for the district court to consider BAC's NRCP 56(f) request, as well as to evaluate whether BAC tendered the superpriority portion of the HOA's lien.² Accordingly, we conclude that summary judgment on this record was improper, and we therefore

ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

FOOTNOTES

1.   BAC also argues that NRS Chapter 116's foreclosure scheme violates its due process rights. This court's decision in Saticoy Bay LLC Series 350 Durango 104 v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 5, 388 P.3d 970 (2017), defeats that challenge.

2.   In this respect, there appears to be unresolved issues regarding the significance of the HOA's account breakdown only going back to January 2011.