Werner v. Bank of America, N.A.

 district court. Pasillas v. HSBC Bank USA, 127 Nev. , 255 P.3d
1281, 1287 (2011). To obtain an FMP certificate, a deed of trust
beneficiary must: (1) attend the mediation; (2) participate in good faith; (3)
bring the required documents; and (4) if attending through a
representative, have a person present with authority to modify the loan or
access to such a person. NRS 107.086(4), (5); Levva v. National Default
Servicing Corp., 127 Nev. „ 255 P.3d 1275, 1278-79 (2011).
Appellant's sole argument on appeal is that the documents are
deficient under FMR 11(4) (2011) (amended and renumbered FMR 11(8),
effective January 1, 2013). The certification respondent provided along
with the certified copy of the assignment of the deed of trust does not
expressly state that the declarant is in possession of the "original"
assignment of the deed of trust. Rather, the certification states that the
declarant is in possession of "an assignment of the mortgage note and/or
deed of trust," with no representation as to its original status. Our
holding in Einhorn v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 128 Nev. , 290
P.3d 249 (2012), controls here. The omission of the word "original" from
the certification is a matter of "form and content," for which substantial
compliance may be sufficient. Id. at , 290 P.3d at 254 (citing Leven v.
Frey, 123 Nev. 399, 408, 168 P.3d 712, 718 (2007)); see also Leyva, 127
Nev. at , 255 P.3d at 1278-79 (setting forth test for determining
whether strict or substantial compliance satisfies FMP requirements and
determining that the production of the documents required strict
compliance to ensure that proper party is foreclosing). Respondent
brought all the required documents, strictly complying with NRS
107.086(4). Leyva, 127 Nev. at , 255 P.3d at 1278-79. Respondent
provided a certified copy of the assignment of the deed of trust from the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
county recorder's office, demonstrating proper authority to foreclose. See
NRS 52.085; Einhorn, 128 Nev. at , 290 P.3d at 254. Appellant does
not challenge the validity of the assignment, nor does she demonstrate any
possible prejudice in the omission of the word "original." To mandate
sanctions solely because the certification omitted the word "original"
would "exalt [] literalism for no practical purpose." Einhorn, 128 Nev. at
, 290 P.3d at 254. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying sanctions and allowing the FMP certificate
to issue. Id. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
, J.
J.
Saitta
cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court
Hon. J. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge
Law Office of Corey B. Beck, P.C.
Jeffrey S. Posin & Associates
Lewis & Roca, LLP/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A