Bank of America, N.A. v. Las Vegas Rental & Repair, LLC, 111519 NVSC, 76914
|Opinion Judge:||GIBBONS C.J.|
|Party Name:||BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. LAS VEGAS RENTAL & REPAIR, LLC SERIES 57, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND SOLANA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AN UNKNOWN NEVADA ENTITY, Respondents.|
|Judge Panel:||Silver, Douglas J. Janet Trost, Settlement Judge|
|Case Date:||November 15, 2019|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Nevada|
ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART AND REMANDING
This is an appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment, certified as final under NRCP 54(b), in an action to quiet title. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Elissa F. Cadish, Judge.1
We conclude that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for respondent Las Vegas Rental & Repair (LVRR), as appellant produced prima facie evidence that its agent, Miles Bauer, delivered the tender letter and check to Nevada Association Services (NAS). Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005) (reviewing de novo a district court's decision to grant summary judgment). In particular, the December 23, 2011, "Received" stamp on the check's description and the entries in Miles Bauer's computer records that the check was sent and returned give rise to a reasonable inference that the tender letter and check were delivered.2 Id. ("[W]hen reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the evidence, and any reasonable inferences drawn from it, must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party."). However, we also conclude that appellant is not entitled to summary judgment, as the absence of a courier slip in Miles Bauer's file and the absence of any record of delivery in NAS's file creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the tender letter and check were delivered. Id. (observing that summary judgment is inappropriate when a genuine issue of material fact exists).
With respect to appellant's claims against respondent Solana Homeowners Association, we conclude that summary judgment was proper on appellant's claims for wrongful foreclosure, tortious interference with contractual relations, and unjust enrichment. The claims for wrongful foreclosure and tortious interference with contractual relations are premised on there being a...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP