Sfr Investments Pool 1 v. Wells Fargo Bank C/W 64500

 that lien. The district court's decisions thus were based on an erroneous
interpretation of the controlling law and did not reach the other issues
colorably asserted. Accordingly, we
VACATE the order denying preliminary injunctive relief,
REVERSE the order granting the motion to dismiss, AND REMAND this
matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this
order.
A
Hardesty
Ct.t AA; J.
J.
Douglas
CHERRY, J., concurring:
For the reasons stated in the SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v.
U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. , 334 P.3d 408 (2014), dissent, I disagree
that respondent lost its lien priority by virtue of the homeowners
association's nonjudicial foreclosure sale. I recognize, however, that SFR
Investments is now the controlling law and, thusly, concur in the
a
disposition of these appeals.
kanotiv
Cherry
cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge
David A. Rosenberg
Howard Kim & Associates
Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1047A