SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 10372 PINK CLOUD v. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In Saticoy Bay LLC Series 9641 Christine View v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n, 134 Nev. 270, 272-74, 417 P.3d 363, 367-68 (2018) (Christine View), this court held that 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) (2012) (the Federal Foreclosure Bar) preempts NRS 116.3116 and prevents an HOA foreclosure sale from extinguishing a first deed of trust when the subject loan is owned by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (or when the FHFA is acting as conservator of a federal entity such as Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae). And in Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 133 Nev. 247, 250-51, 396 P.3d 754, 757-58 (2017), this court held that loan servicers such as respondent have standing to assert the Federal Foreclosure Bar on behalf of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. Consistent with these decisions, the district court correctly determined that respondent had standing to assert the Federal Foreclosure Bar on Fannie Mae's behalf and that the foreclosure sale did not extinguish the first deed of trust because Fannie Mae owned the secured loan at the time of the sale.²

Appellant contends that it is protected as a bona fide purchaser from the Federal Foreclosure Bar's effect.³ But we have held that an HOA foreclosure sale purchaser's putative status as a bona fide purchaser is inapposite when the Federal Foreclosure Bar applies because Nevada law does not require Freddie Mac (or in this case Fannie Mae) to publicly record its ownership interest in the subject loan. Daisy Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 135 Nev. 230, 233-34, 445 P.3d 846, 849 (2019). Appellant also challenges the sufficiency and admissibility of respondent's evidence demonstrating Fannie Mae's interest in the loan and respondent's status as the loan's servicer, but we have rejected similar arguments with respect to similar evidence.⁴ Id. at 234-36, 445 P.3d at 850-51.

Appellant further contends that respondent was time-barred from asserting the Federal Foreclosure Bar. To the extent that respondent's assertion of the Federal Foreclosure Bar was subject to a limitations period, it was timely asserted within six years of the HOA's foreclosure sale.  ⁵ See JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Ass'n v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 68 (2020) (holding that 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(12)’s six-year limitation period applies to any action brought to enforce the Federal Foreclosure Bar). Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that respondent's assertion was not time-barred. Cf. Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. 592, 599, 245 P.3d 1198, 1202 (2010) (recognizing that this court will affirm the district court's decision if it reached the right result, albeit for the wrong reason). Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that appellant took title to the property subject to the first deed of trust. We therefore

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

2.   We decline appellant's invitation to imply Fannie Mae's consent to the foreclosure sale. See Christine View, 134 Nev. at 274, 417 P.3d at 368 (recognizing that Fannie Mae must give affirmative consent to a foreclosure under the Federal Foreclosure Bar).

3.   Appellant's reliance on Shadow Wood Homeowners Ass'n v. New York Community Bancorp, Inc., 132 Nev. 49, 366 P.3d 1105 (2016), is misplaced because the district court did not grant respondent equitable relief. Rather, the district court determined that the deed of trust survived the foreclosure sale by operation of law (i.e., the Federal Foreclosure Bar).

4.   To the extent appellant has raised arguments that were not explicitly addressed in Daisy Trust, none of those arguments convince us that the district court abused its discretion in admitting respondent's evidence or that respondent failed to demonstrate Fannie Mae's ownership. 135 Nev. at 234, 445 P.3d at 850 (recognizing that this court reviews a district court's decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion).

5.   To the extent appellant argues that respondent needed to assert the Federal Foreclosure Bar in the form of a counterclaim, we are not persuaded by that argument.