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.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. CORTE MADERA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; et al., Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM *
CitiMortgage, Inc. (“Citi”) appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendants on Citi's claim for quiet title. Specifically, Citi appeals the district court's rejection of Citi's due process challenge to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.3116, and the district court's ruling that the subject non-judicial foreclosure sale should not be set aside in equity because Citi presented no evidence that fraud, unfairness, or oppression caused an inadequate sale price.
Citi's due process argument relies on Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), but, as Citi acknowledged at oral argument, Bourne Valley is no longer good law. After Bourne Valley was decided, the Nevada Supreme Court held in SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 134 Nev. 483, 422 P.3d 1248, 1253 (2018) (en banc), that Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.31168 incorporates the mandatory notice provisions of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.090. We recognized this holding in Bank of America N.A. v. Arlington West Twilight Homeowners Ass'n, 920 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). Citi's facial due process challenge is unavailing.
Citi also argues that the district court erred by concluding that there was no evidence of fraud, oppression, or unfairness that justified setting aside Corte Madera's foreclosure sale. Under Nevada law, an inadequate price alone is insufficient to set aside a sale. See Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 2227 Shadow Canyon, 133 Nev. 740, 405 P.3d 641, 648–49 (2017). There must be “proof of some element of fraud, unfairness, or oppression as accounts for and brings about the inadequacy of price.” Id. at 643 (quoting Shadow Wood Homeowners Ass'n v. N.Y. Cmty. Bancorp., 132 Nev. 49, 366 P.3d 1105, 1110 (2016) (en banc)). Here, the district court did not err by ruling that Citi failed to raise a material issue of fact about whether fraud, unfairness, or oppression caused the allegedly inadequate sale price.
AFFIRMED.
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. 17-16404
Decided: June 19, 2020
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)