Sfr Invs. Pool 1, Llc v. Ditech Fin. Llc

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, A No. 81443
NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY
CORPORATION,
Appellant, FILE
vs.
DITECH FINANCIAL LLC, F/K/A MAR 3 1 2022
GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC, ELIZABE . A. BROWN
CLE •F S PREME COU
Res • ondent.
B
CLERK
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Appellant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, appeals from a district
court order granting summary judgment in an HOA foreclosure matter.
Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Susan Johnson, Judge.
In 2005, Adekunle Ajayi bought a house in Las Vegas, Nevada,
granting a deed of trust to his lender. That same year, Fannie Mae bought
the loan from Ajayi's lender. The Federal Housing Finance Authority
(FHFA) became Fannie Mae's conservator in 2008. After failing to pay the
homeowner's association (HOA) assessments, Ajayi's HOA foreclosed in
2013, selling the home at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale to SFR for $20,000.
In 2014, Ajayi filed a complaint in district court to quiet title on the property
against SFR and the HOA. Respondent Ditech Financial, LLC, the
contractual servicer of Fannie Mae's loan, intervened and sought
declaratory relief that Fannie Mae's deed of trust had not been extinguished
by the HOA foreclosure and sale under the Federal Foreclosure Bar,
12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3). The district court dismissed Ajayi's complaint but
granted Ditech's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the
Federal Foreclosure Bar applied, thus maintaining the status of Fannie
Mae's deed of trust. SFR does not appeal that determination, but instead
raises a constitutional argument based on the United States Supreme
Court's recent decision in Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021),1 asking
this court to remand the case to the district court to determine SFR's claim
to damages because of the FHFNs unconstitutional structure.
Reviewing de novo, we find SFR's argument that this case
should be remanded to the district court for an assessment of damages to
be unpersuasive. See Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d
1026, 1029 (2005) (reviewing a district court's decision to grant summary
judgment de novo). SFR failed to assert any claim or defense relating to the
unconstitutional structure of the FHFA before the district court, so we
decline to consider them for the first time on appeal. Einhorn v. BAC Home
Loans Servicing, LP, 128 Nev. 689, 693 n.3, 290 P.3d 249, 252 n.3 (2012)
(declining to consider arguments without record citations and not made
before the district court). For these reasons, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
, J.
Hardesty
MAI,G4.-0 , J. , J.
Stiglich Herndon
lIn Collins, the Court concluded that the Housing Economic Recovery
Act's for-cause restriction on the President's ability to remove the FHFNs
Director violated the separation of powers but that the Director still had
authority to carry out the functions of the office. 141 S.Ct. at 1788.
2
cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge
John Walter Boyer, Settlement Judge
Kim Gilbert Ebron
Wolfe & Wyman LLP
Eighth Judicial District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
fOi 1947A