Holt v. Reg'l Tr. Servs. Corp.

Decision Date15 December 2011
Docket NumberNo. 56479.,56479.
Citation266 P.3d 602,127 Nev. Adv. Op. 80
PartiesKarl HOLT and Frances Holt, Appellants, v. REGIONAL TRUSTEE SERVICES CORPORATION, A Foreign Entity; One West Bank, FSB, A Foreign Entity; and Verise Campbell, in her official capacity as Deputy Director, Nevada Foreclosure Mediation Program, Respondents.
CourtNevada Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Law Offices of Roderic A. Carucci and Roderic A. Carucci, Reno, for Appellants.

Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, and Donna M. Osborn and Robin Prema Wright, Las Vegas, for Respondents, Regional Trustee Services Corporation and One West Bank, FSB.

Fennemore Craig, P.C., and Christopher H. Byrd, Las Vegas, for Respondent Verise Campbell.Before the Court En Banc.

OPINION

By the Court, PICKERING, J.:

Since 2009 Nevada law has required loan-modification mediation on homeowner request before a nonjudicial foreclosure sale can proceed on an owner-occupied residence. Compliance is evidenced by a Foreclosure Mediation Program (FMP) certificate that mediation has concluded or been waived. This certificate must be recorded for a valid foreclosure sale to occur.

On this appeal, we consider whether a lender who has been denied an FMP certificate for failing to mediate in good faith can reinitiate foreclosure by means of a new notice of default and election to sell and rescission of the original, thereby restarting the FMP process. In the circumstances of this case, we conclude that it can. We therefore affirm the district court's refusal to enjoin the nonjudicial foreclosure initiated by the second notice of default and election to sell and its further order directing the parties to return to FMP mediation.

I.

Appellants Karl and Frances Holt signed a $2,350,000 note secured by a first deed of trust on their home. Respondents Regional Trustee Services Corporation (RTSC) and One West Bank, FSB are the trustee and beneficiary, respectively, of the deed of trust.1 The Holts have not made a house payment since September of 2008; as of July, 2010, their arrearages stood at more than $360,000.

RTSC initiated nonjudicial foreclosure on July 16, 2009, by recording a notice of default and election to sell (the 2009 NOD). The Holts elected mediation under the then-new FMP. When no one from the lender's side appeared at the scheduled mediation, the mediator declared RTSC in bad faith. The Holts then filed a petition for judicial review in district court pursuant to NRS 107.086(5) to redress RTSC's bad faith non-participation in the FMP process. The petition named only RTSC as respondent and sought loan modification as sanctions, specifically, reduced principal (from $2,345,000 to $1,300,000), lower interest (from 6.5% to 2%), and a change in terms (from “interest only” to fully amortized over 30 years).

The matter was assigned to Judge Donald M. Mosley, who ordered a rescheduled mediation at RTSC's expense. Once again, no one from the lender's side appeared, and the Holts returned to district court, where they renewed their request for sanctions. After hearing argument but without taking evidence, Judge Mosley declined the Holts' request for court-ordered loan modification. He also rejected RTSC's excuses (miscommunication and an incompetent agent) for missing the rescheduled mediation and declared RTSC in bad faith. As sanctions, he directed that RTSC be denied the FMP certificate needed to conduct a valid foreclosure sale and awarded the Holts their attorney fees.

Orally, Judge Mosley limited his order to the foreclosure sale initiated by the 2009 NOD. He emphasized that denying the FMP certificate “doesn't mean that [RTSC] can't go through the process again of trying to foreclose.” The Holts' counsel acknowledged the point (“I understand that you're not allowing an issuance of the certification, so the foreclosure cannot proceed unless they start over again”), and the hearing ended with this recap:

COUNSEL FOR THE HOLTS: So as I understand it ..., this matter is concluded.... Sanctions were ordered for $3144.20 [in attorney fees]. There will be no certificate issued by the Mediation Administrator; therefore, they can't proceed with foreclosure?

THE COURT: On this one. They can restart the process.

COUNSEL FOR THE HOLTS: They can start all over again.

Terse “findings of fact, conclusions of law and order” followed. These do not mention the oral limitation Judge Mosley put on his order, stating only: (1) “the Respondent, Regional Trustee Services, Corp. was in bad faith in that they failed to attend the [rescheduled] mediation”; (2) the Holts “are to be reimbursed for costs and expenses in the amount of $3,144.20”; and (3) “Letter of Certification shall not issue.” Neither side appealed.

Meanwhile, the Holts continued to live in their house without making payments, and on March 1, 2010, RTSC reinitiated nonjudicial foreclosure by recording a second notice of default and election to sell (the 2010 NOD). The 2010 NOD encompassed the monthly payment defaults declared in the 2009 NOD (September 2008 to July 2009) and added those that had occurred since (from July 2009 forward). RTSC also recorded a notice of rescission of the 2009 NOD that stated, “this rescission shall not in any manner be construed as waiving or affecting any breach or default—past, present or future—under said Deed of Trust, ... but is, and shall be deemed to be, only an election, without prejudice, not to cause a sale to be made pursuant to said [2009] Notice of Default....”

The Holts responded to the 2010 NOD by filing a second action in district court, seeking to enjoin RTSC and One West from pursuing foreclosure under it. They argued that the order denying the FMP certificate carries claim- and issue-preclusive effect and permanently prevents foreclosure, even though they continue to default on their monthly house payments. In addition, the Holts elected FMP mediation as to the 2010 NOD “out of an abundance of caution,” to protect their rights should their first line of defense—claim and issue preclusion—fail.

This second suit, which gives rise to this appeal, was assigned to Judge Michelle Leavitt. After briefing and argument, she denied the Holts' application for injunctive relief and ordered FMP mediation to take place within 90 days before the originally assigned mediator. The Holts appealed. Mediation has been stayed pending briefing, argument, and decision of the matter. While three loan modification mediations have been scheduled, therefore, none has actually occurred.

II.

Denial of an FMP certificate does not, without more, permanently preclude foreclosure. The judicial review proceeding before Judge Mosley halted the foreclosure sale noticed by the 2009 NOD, but it did not preclude RTSC and One West from restarting the nonjudicial foreclosure process via the 2010 NOD. The Holts' contrary argument misapprehends the claim and issue-preclusion doctrines, as well as the nature of nonjudicial foreclosure and FMP–mediation and judicial-review proceedings. Additionally, claim and issue preclusion cannot enlarge an order that the rendering judge expressly limited. Given the limitations Judge Mosley placed on his sanction order, to the extent the order carries preclusive effect, it inhibits the Holts' challenge to the 2010 NOD, not the 2010 NOD itself. Because Judge Leavitt neither committed an error of law nor abused her discretion in denying the Holts' application for injunctive relief, see University Sys. v. Nevadans for Sound Gov't, 120 Nev. 712, 721, 100 P.3d 179, 187 (2004), we affirm.

A.

Claim and issue preclusion ‘protect the finality of decisions and prevent the proliferation of litigation,’ but do not apply unless specific requirements are met.” Redrock Valley Ranch v. Washoe County, 127 Nev. ––––, ––––, 254 P.3d 641, 646 (2011) (quoting Littlejohn v. United States, 321 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir.2003)). “Among other requirements, for [claim] preclusion to attach ... ‘the subsequent action [must be] based on the same claims or any part of them that were or could have been brought in the first case.’ Id. (third alteration in original) (quoting Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1054–55, 194 P.3d 709, 713 (2008)). For “issue preclusion to attach, the issue decided in the prior [proceeding] must be identical to the issue presented in the current [proceeding],” id. (alterations in original) (quotation omitted), and have been ‘actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment [in which] the determination [was] essential to the judgment.’ In re Sandoval, 126 Nev. ––––, ––––, 232 P.3d 422, 424 (2010) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982)). Claim and issue preclusion can apply in the administrative context [w]hen an administrative agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate,” United States v. Utah Constr. Co., 384 U.S. 394, 421–22, 86 S.Ct. 1545, 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966), 2 and to defenses and compulsory counterclaims, but “only to defenses which were available in the prior action” (claim preclusion), 18 James Wm. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 131.21[5][a], at 131–53–131–54 (3d ed. 2011), and actually asserted and necessarily decided (issue preclusion), id. § 131.21 [5][b], at 131–55.

The Holts argue that the judicial review proceedings before Judge Mosley extinguished RTSC's and One West's “claim” to a nonjudicial foreclosure remedy for the Holts' defaults on the note. But as the name implies, nonjudicial foreclosure is not a judicial “action,” giving rise to a claim or defense of foreclosure based on a mediation election and the subsequent institution of FMP judicial review proceedings. See NRS 40.430(6)(e). It “occurs outside of the ‘range of procedures incident to litigation,’ and instead involves act [s] unrelated to court authority.” Tom v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, No. 10–00653 SOM/BMK, 2011 WL 2133705, at *10 (D.Haw. May 25, 2011) (quoting Young v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
71 cases
  • Aspen Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • 6 Diciembre 2012
    ...the relevant factors, and provides a clear insight into why the court denied the motion. See Holt v. Regional Trustee Services Corp., 127 Nev. ––––, ––––, 266 P.3d 602, 608 (2011) (oral pronouncements on the record may be used by a reviewing court to construe an order that is silent on a po......
  • Carroll v. R.J. Nelson, Inc.
    • United States
    • Nevada Court of Appeals
    • 29 Diciembre 2021
    ...reserved for future determination." Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 13 cmt. b); see also Holt v. Reg'l Tr. Servs. Corp., 127 Nev. 886, 895, 266 P.3d 602, 607 (2011) ("[T]he general rule of claim preclusion does not apply if the court in the first action expressly reserves t......
  • Edelstein v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • 27 Septiembre 2012
    ...form with the notice of default and election to sell. 127 Nev. ––––, 255 P.3d at 1284;see also Holt v. Regional Trustee Services Corp., 127 Nev. ––––, ––––, 266 P.3d 602, 606 (2011). If the grantor/homeowner elects to mediate, the beneficiary of the deed of trust or a representative must, i......
  • Alcantara v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • 3 Abril 2014
    ...in the prior [proceeding] must be identical to the issue presented in the current [proceeding].’ ” Holt v. Regional Tr. Servs. Corp., 127 Nev. ––––, ––––, 266 P.3d 602, 605 (2011) (alterations in original) (quoting Redrock Valley Ranch v. Washoe Cnty., 127 Nev. ––––, ––––, 254 P.3d 641, 646......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT