Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I INC. TRUST 2006-HE8 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-HE8, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Defendant-counter-claimant-cross-claimant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against it and in favor of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-HE8 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE8 (“Deutsche Bank”). Reviewing de novo, Berezovsky v. Moniz, 869 F.3d 923, 927 (9th Cir. 2017), we reverse.
The district court granted summary judgment to Deutsche Bank solely on the ground that, under Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), the homeowners’ association (“HOA”) “foreclosed under a facially unconstitutional notice scheme.” The Ninth Circuit recently held that Nevada’s HOA foreclosure scheme is not facially unconstitutional, because our decision in Bourne Valley was based on a construction of Nevada law that the Nevada Supreme Court has since made clear was erroneous. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 623–24 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Arlington West”) (recognizing that Bourne Valley “no longer controls the analysis” in light of SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 134 Nev. 483, 422 P.3d 1248 (2018) (“Star Hill”)).1
The judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank against SFR is REVERSED. In addition, the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of SFR’s crossclaims is REVERSED. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum disposition. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
FOOTNOTES
1. Neither Arlington West nor Star Hill is an advisory opinion.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-15326
Decided: December 13, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)