TRASHED HOME CORPORATION v. BANK OF AMERICA (2021)

ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT AND REMANDING

In rendering its judgment, the district court relied on a panel opinion from this court in Bank of America, N.A. v. Thomas Jessup, LLC Series VII, 135 Nev. 42, 435 P.3d 1217 (2019), which has since been vacated by the en banc court. We thereafter issued an opinion in 7510 Perla Del Mar Avenue Trust v. Bank of America, N.A., 136 Nev. 62, 63, 458 P.3d 348, 349 (2020) (Perla), in which we held that a formal superpriority tender is excused “when evidence shows that the party entitled to payment had a known policy of rejecting such payments.”

Accordingly, the basis for the district court's judgment, while understandable, is no longer legally valid. We therefore vacate and remand the judgment in favor of respondent Bank of America.¹ On remand, the district court should consider the evidence presented under the Perla standard, which the district court did not have at its disposal when it rendered its judgment. We leave to the district court's discretion as to how that should be done. Relatedly, we clarify that our unpublished disposition in Bank of America, N.A. v. Thomas Jessup, LLC Series VII, Docket No. 73785 (Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding, May 7, 2020), was based on the specific evidence and testimony presented in that case and that Absolute Collection Service's response letter is not necessarily insufficient to satisfy Perla’s standard depending on what other evidence and testimony is presented. In light of the foregoing, we

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

FOOTNOTES

1.   Consistent with the Nevada Court of Appeals’ initial resolution of this appeal, we are not persuaded by any of Bank of America's alternative arguments in support of affirmance.