NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAS VEGAS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC; Airmotive Investments, LLC, Defendants-Appellants, Falls At Hidden Canyon Homeowners Association; Absolute Collection Services, LLC, Defendants.
Decided: December 13, 2019
Before: BEA, COLLINS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Darren T. Brenner, Attorney, Jamie Combs, Attorney, Ariel Edward Stern, Esquire, Attorney, Donna M. Wittig, Attorney, Akerman LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Richard Aaron Chastain, Stephen Colmery Parsley, Esquire, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, One Federal Place, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee Roger P. Croteau, Roger P. Croteau & Associates, Ltd., Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellants
Las Vegas Development Group, LLC and Airmotive Investments, LLC appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nationstar Mortgage LLC. We assume familiarity with the facts and procedural history and discuss them only as necessary to explain our decision.
The district court granted summary judgment to Nationstar based 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. Id. at 1156. The Ninth Circuit recently held, however, 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) (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)).
The judgment in favor of Nationstar is therefore REVERSED. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum disposition, including as to whether Nationstar’s predecessor-in-interest properly tendered the superpriority amount of the HOA’s lien and, if not, whether the failure to tender was nonetheless excused. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
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.