NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC v. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL LLC (2020)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant.
Decided: September 04, 2020
Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and KENDALL,** District Judge.
Rex D. Garner, Ariel Edward Stern, Esquire, Attorney, Jamie Combs, Attorney, Lilith Vala Xara, Esquire, Attorney, Akerman LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee Howard C. Kim, Attorney, Diana S. Ebron, Attorney, Jacqueline A. Gilbert, Esquire, Attorney, Kim Gilbert Ebron, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant
SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, see Sandoval v. County of Sonoma, 912 F.3d 509, 515 (9th Cir. 2018), and we vacate and remand.
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC filed the underlying complaint seeking to establish that its deed of trust on a particular real property in Nevada survived a homeowners association foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to Chapter 116 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. Relying on our decision in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), the district court granted judgment in favor of Nationstar. As Nationstar concedes, the Nevada Supreme court has rejected Bourne Valley’s interpretation of the statutory scheme, and Nationstar was not entitled to judgment on the basis that the governing Nevada statute contained an unconstitutional opt-in notice provision. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass'n, 920 F.3d 620, 623–24 (9th Cir. 2019) (discussing SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 134 Nev. 483, 422 P.3d 1248 (2018)).
Prior to issuing the final judgment relying on Bourne Valley, the district court determined that there were several triable issues. We decline the parties’ requests to affirm or reverse on alternative grounds and instead “exercise our power to remand” to the district court for further proceedings. See Johnson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 635 F.3d 401, 408 (9th Cir. 2011).
SFR's motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 49) is denied as moot.
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
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.