The Bank of New York Mellon v. Spring Mountain Ranch Ma ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 31 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,                    No.    18-16342
    FKA Bank of New York, as Trustee for the
    Certificateholders of the CWALT, Inc.,          D.C. No.
    Alternative Loan Trust 2005-41, Mortgage        2:17-cv-02177-JCM-NJK
    Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-41,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            MEMORANDUM*
    v.
    SPRING MOUNTAIN RANCH MASTER
    ASSOCIATION; 8933 SQUARE KNOT
    TRUST,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 27, 2020**
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Before: W. FLETCHER, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    The Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM) seeks reversal of the district
    *
    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).
    Page 2 of 4
    court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by
    defendant/counter-claimant 8933 Square Knot Trust (the Trust) on the Trust’s
    claim for quiet title, and dismissing as moot BNYM’s motion for summary
    judgment on its own claim for quiet title. We reverse the district court’s order
    granting the Trust’s motion for summary judgment and remand for further
    proceedings consistent with this disposition.
    1. When the district court ruled, it did not have the benefit of the Nevada
    Supreme Court’s decision in Bank of America, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1,
    LLC, 
    427 P.3d 113
    (Nev. 2018) (en banc). There, the court held that the holder of
    a first deed of trust can preserve its interest by tendering the superpriority portion
    due on a homeowners association’s lien, which consists of nine months of unpaid
    dues and any unpaid charges for maintenance and nuisance abatement.
    Id. at 116–
    18.
    BNYM’s predecessor complied with this requirement by tendering payment
    of $535.50 prior to the foreclosure sale. Nine months of unpaid dues totaled
    $531.00. Because the ledger provided by the homeowners association did not
    reflect any charges for maintenance or nuisance abatement, a tender of $535.50
    was sufficient to satisfy the superpriority portion of the lien. See Bank of Am., N.A.
    v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 
    920 F.3d 620
    , 623 (9th Cir. 2019)
    (per curiam); SFR Investments Pool 
    1, 427 P.3d at 118
    . Accordingly, the
    Page 3 of 4
    foreclosure sale did not extinguish BNYM’s deed of trust. See SFR Investments
    Pool 
    1, 427 P.3d at 116
    .
    2. We affirm the district court’s holding that the Trust’s counterclaim was
    timely. The Trust acquired its interest in the property in June 2012 and filed its
    counterclaim more than five years later, on October 30, 2017—soon after it first
    learned of BNYM’s competing interest in the property. BNYM filed its claim for
    quiet title in August 2017. Although Nevada law provides a five-year statute of
    limitations for a claim for quiet title, which accrues once the plaintiff or her
    predecessor acquires her interest in the property, Saticoy Bay LLC Series 2021
    Gray Eagle Way v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 
    388 P.3d 226
    , 232 (Nev. 2017), a
    party cannot reasonably be expected to file a claim for quiet title before she is
    aware of a competing interest in the property. Absent any binding authority
    suggesting that Nevada law requires a party to file a claim for quiet title before she
    has reason to believe that doing so is necessary, we decline to reverse the district
    court’s judgment on that basis.
    We leave for the district court on remand to address in the first instance the
    Trust’s bona fide purchaser argument, which the court did not reach below, and
    which the parties have not briefed.
    3. BNYM asserted its own claim for quiet title against the Trust and Spring
    Mountain Ranch Master Association (Spring Mountain). Spring Mountain filed a
    Page 4 of 4
    motion to dismiss BNYM’s claim for quiet title on the ground that the claim was
    barred by the statute of limitations. The district court granted that motion, and
    thereafter dismissed as moot BNYM’s motion for summary judgment on its claim
    for quiet title against the Trust. BNYM has waived any challenge to those rulings
    by not presenting arguments against them in its briefs on appeal.
    In light of our reversal of the district court’s ruling on the Trust’s motion for
    summary judgment on its claim for quiet title, we remand to the district court for
    further proceedings consistent with this disposition.
    AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-16342

Filed Date: 3/31/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/31/2020