Sullivan v. Wells Fargo Bank ( 2013 )

 original note. Edelstein, 128 Nev. at , 286 P.3d at 260 (indicating that,
absent clear error, a district court's factual determinations will not be
disturbed).
Appellant next contends that the deed of trust produced by
Wells Fargo was "null and void" because his original lender, Washington
Mutual, appointed California Reconveyance Company, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Washington Mutual, as the trustee. Cf. NRS 107.028(2)
(prohibiting the deed of trust beneficiary from serving as trustee for
purposes of conducting a foreclosure sale). Regardless of the relationship
between these two entities, appellant has provided no authority to support
the premise that a violation of NRS 107.028(2) renders the entire security
instrument void. At any rate, no such violation occurred here, because at
the time the notice of default was recorded, appellant's loan was owned by
Wells Fargo, who had appointed a new trustee.' Thus, the district court
properly determined that Wells Fargo possessed appellant's deed of trust.
Edelstein, 128 Nev. at , 286 P.3d at 260.
Appellant finally contends that the deed of trust assignment
that Wells Fargo produced was fraudulent. While we note that no
assignment was necessary, 2 we have reviewed the record and conclude
'Appellant contends that Wells Fargo should have notified him of
the substitution of trustee. Appellant's deed of trust contemplates that a
new trustee may be appointed without providing notice to appellant, and
appellant has not pointed to any statutory authority that would require
such notice. Cf. NRS 107.028(4) (indicating that an appointment of a new
trustee becomes effective once the substitution of trustee is recorded in the
county recorder's office).
in Edelstein, this court held that "a promissory note
2 Specifically,
and a deed of trust are automatically transferred together unless the
parties agree otherwise." 128 Nev. at , 286 P.3d at 257. Further, in
continued on next page...
SUPREME COURT
• OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the
assignment was valid. Edelstein, 128 Nev. at , 286 P.3d at 260.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge
Michael F. Sullivan
McCarthy & Holthus, LLP/Las Vegas
Washoe District Court Clerk
...continued
Edelstein, we addressed a situation in which the deed of trust contained
language appointing MERS as the beneficiary, and we concluded that this
was an agreement "otherwise." Id. at , 286 P.3d at 259. Here,
however, the deed of trust contained no such agreement, meaning that a
transfer of the note automatically transferred ownership of the deed of
trust. Id. at , 286 P.3d at 257-58. Thus, when Wells Fargo established
that it had possession of the note, which was endorsed in blank by
appellant's original lender, Wells Fargo effectively established that it was
both the note holder, see Leyva, 127 Nev. at _, 255 P.3d at 1280-81
(analyzing Article 3 of Nevada's Uniform Commercial Code and explaining
how "holder" status can be attained), and the deed of trust beneficiary.
See Edelstein, 128 Nev. at , 286 P.3d at 257-58.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A