First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Nevada v. Racquet Club Condominiums

• Decision Date: 07 February 1991
• Docket Number: No. 20363,20363
• Citation: 107 Nev. 20,805 P.2d 601
• Parties: FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF NEVADA, Appellant and Cross-Respondent, v. RACQUET CLUB CONDOMINIUMS, Respondent and Cross-Appellant.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Page 601

805 P.2d 601

107 Nev. 20

FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF NEVADA Appellant and Cross-Respondent, v. RACQUET CLUB CONDOMINIUMS, Respondent and Cross-Appellant.

No. 20363.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Feb. 7, 1991.

Stephens, Knight & Edwards, Reno, for appellant and cross-respondent.

Margo Piscevich and Kimberley Palmer Fenner, Hale, Lane, Peek, Dennison & Howard, Reno, for respondent and cross-appellant.

OPINION ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

On November 28, 1990, this court issued an opinion reversing the decision of the district court and remanding this matter with instructions. See First Federal v. Racquet Club Condominiums, 106 Nev. 758, 801 P.2d 1360 (1990). Appellant, First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Nevada, has petitioned for rehearing. Because this court misapprehended a material matter of fact, we grant this petition for rehearing, and we modify the mandate of our former opinion. See NRAP 40(c).

This case involves the ownership of two condominiums. Originally, a partnership named Western Camino Leasing, which was comprised of the Benners and the Sampaulesis, owned both condominiums. The partnership executed deeds transferring the properties to the Benners and the Sampaulesis. This was done to facilitate a transaction between these parties and the appellant bank. These original deeds contained the error that led to this litigation. The property transferred to the Benners actually belonged to the Sampaulesis, and visa versa.

At the same time, deeds of trust were executed in favor of the bank with respect to the two properties involved. These deeds of trust correctly reflected the ownership interests of the individual parties in the condominiums. Thus, the original deeds, which contained the error, did not match the deeds of trust, which did not contain any error.

The Sampaulesis took possession of Unit 49, and the Benners took possession of Unit 50 as correctly reflected in the deeds of trust. Respondent foreclosed on the properties to satisfy a lien which arose from the non-payment of association fees, and the bank foreclosed its interests which arose from the deeds of trust. Because First Federal's deeds of trust did not match the original deeds transferring the properties to the Benners and the Sampaulesis, respondent claimed that First Federal obtained no interest in the properties through its foreclosures. First Federal sought reformation of the original deeds, not the deeds of trust. The district court...