SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 111519 NVSC, 74645
| Docket Nº: | 74645 |
| Opinion Judge: | GIBBONS, C.J. |
| Party Name: | SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, A DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, A FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Judge Panel: | Silver, J., Douglas, J. William C. Turner, Settlement Judge |
| Case Date: | November 15, 2019 |
| Court: | Supreme Court of Nevada |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND
GIBBONS, C.J.
This is an appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment in an action to quiet title. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Douglas Smith, Judge. Reviewing the summary judgment de novo, Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005), we reverse and remand.1
We conclude that the district court erred in determining that a restrictive covenant in the HOA's CC&Rs demonstrated the HOA's choice to foreclose on only the subpriority portion of its lien. Although this court recognized in SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. 742, 757-58, 334 P.3d 408, 419 (2014), that NRS 116.1104 invalidated a virtually identically worded CC&R provision, 2 the district court agreed with respondent that an HOA's election to proceed only on the subpriority portion of its lien is an election of remedies, not a waiver, and that NRS 116.3116(6) allows an HOA to elect remedies. This position is not supported by any relevant authority, and we disagree with the interpretation of NRS 116.3116(6).3
NRS 116.3116(6) stated, "This section does not prohibit actions to recover sums for which subsection creates a lien or prohibit an association from taking a deed in lieu of foreclosure." Its plain language provides only that an HOA is not prohibited from taking action other than foreclosure to satisfy its lien. It says nothing about an HOA choosing to J foreclose on only the subpriority piece of its assessment lien when the superpriority piece has not been satisfied. See SFR Invs., 130 Nev. at 757- 58, 334 P.3d at 419 (stating that nothing in NRS 116.3116 expressly provides for a waiver of the HOA's right to a priority position). We therefore are not convinced that any such choice can be characterized as an "election of remedies" that could be logically distinguished from a waiver that is precluded by NRS 116.1104. Even if we were to credit...
To continue reading
FREE SIGN UP