Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Las Vegas Dev. Group ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, No. 18-15837
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:15-cv-01287-RCJ-NJK
v.
LAS VEGAS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, MEMORANDUM*
LLC; AIRMOTIVE INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
FALLS AT HIDDEN CANYON
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION;
ABSOLUTE COLLECTION SERVICES,
LLC,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 10, 2019**
Pasadena, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: BEA, COLLINS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Las Vegas Development Group, LLC and Airmotive Investments, LLC appeal
the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nationstar Mortgage LLC.
We assume familiarity with the facts and procedural history and discuss them only
as necessary to explain our decision.
The district court granted summary judgment to Nationstar based solely on
the ground that, under Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d
1154 (9th Cir. 2016), the homeowners’ association (HOA) foreclosed under a
facially unconstitutional notice scheme. Id. at 1156. The Ninth Circuit recently
held, however, that Nevada’s HOA foreclosure scheme is not facially
unconstitutional because our decision in Bourne Valley was based on a construction
of Nevada law that the Nevada Supreme Court has since made clear was erroneous.
See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620,
623–24 (9th Cir. 2019) (recognizing that Bourne Valley “no longer controls the
analysis” in light of SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 422
P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2018)).
The judgment in favor of Nationstar is therefore REVERSED. The case is
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum disposition,
including as to whether Nationstar’s predecessor-in-interest properly tendered the
2
superpriority amount of the HOA’s lien and, if not, whether the failure to tender was
nonetheless excused. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
3