N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C HARLESTON ASSOC IATES, LLC , Plaintiff-Appe lla nt,
v. C ITY NATIONAL B ANK, a nd R A SOUTHEAST LAND C OM PANY, LLC , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16698 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-2023-M M D-PAL
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da M iranda M . Du, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Nove m

be r 17, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

N, R AW L INSON, and DAVIS, ** C i rc uit Judge s. 

# F IL ED
JAN 25 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.
** The Honora

ble Andre M . Dav is, Se nior C irc uit Judgefor the Unite d Stat e s C ourt of Appe a ls for the Fourth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.Appe lla nt C ha rle ston Assoc iat e s, LLC (“ C ha rle ston” ) file d

an a d ve rsary proc e e ding in ba

nkruptc y c ourt a ga inst Appe lle e s C i ty Nationa l B ank (“ C N B ” ) and R A Southe a st La

nd C om pa ny , LLC (“ R

A Southe a st” ), se e king a

de c l ara tion tha

t it
owne d the De c la

rant’ s R ights a ssoc iate d

with a forty -one -a c re pa

rc e l of la nd in La s Ve ga s, Ne va da . The ba

nkruptc y c ourt e nte re d sum

m ary judgm e n t in fa

vor of C ha rle ston. On a

ppe a l, the distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha t C ha rle ston ha d re ta ine d posse s sion of theDe c la

rant’ s R ights until 2007, a t whic h point theDe c la

rant’ s R ights tra nsfe rre d to C N B via

a Truste e ’ s Sa le e xe c ute d pursua nt to a C ha rle stonC NB Se ttle m e nt Agre e m e nt. Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt re ve rse d the judgm e nt of the ba nkruptc y c o urt a nd re m ande d with instruc tions for theba nkruptc y c ourt to
award sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of C N B and R

A Southe a st. C ha

rle ston now
a ppe a ls. For the re a sons sta t e d be low, we a ffirm

the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt. 1. W e re vie w “ de nov o the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision on a n a ppe a l from

a ba nkruptc y c ourt.” In reAFI Holding, Inc

. , 525 F.3d 700, 702 (9th C ir. 2008)

. Ac c ordingly , we a

pply the sa m e sta nda rd of re vie w a s the distric t c ourt a pplie d a nd give no de fe re nc e to the de c ision of thedistric t c ourt. Id. “ The ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s findings of fa c t

are re vie we d for c le ar e rror.” In reJ TS C orp. , 617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th C ir. 2010). This me a n s we a c c e pt the ba

nkruptc y c o urt’ s findings of fa c t unle ss we are “ le ft with thede finite and firm c onvic tion tha

t a m ista ke ha s be e n 2c om

m itte d.” Id. (quoting In reGre e ne , 583 F.3d 614, 618 (9th C ir. 2009)). M ixe d que stions of la

w a nd fa c t a nd c o nc lusions of la

w a re re vie we d de nov o . Id. 2. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t C ha rle s ton re ta ine d posse ssion of the De c la

ra nt’ s R ights into 2007 a

nd ple dge d the De c la

ra nt’ s R ights to C

NB a s pa rt of a De e d of Trust, Assignme nt of R e n ts, Se c urity Agre e m e nt a

n d Fixture Filing (“ D e e d of Trust” ). While C ha rle s ton a rgue s tha t it tra nsfe rre d the De c la rant’ s R ights to one

of its a ffilia

te s in 2002 via

an ora l tra nsfe r a gre e m e nt, the purporte d ora l tra

nsfe r did not c om

port with the

una m biguous te rm s of the Grant of R e c iproc a l Ea se m e nts a

n d De c l ara t ion of C ove na nts (“ R EA” ), whic h

gove rns the De c la rant’ s R ights a

nd the de ve lopm e nt of the forty -one -a c re prope rty . 3. Se c tion 11.8 of the

REA provide s tha

t the De c la

rant’ s R ights m ay

be transfe rre d “ [u] pon sa l e or tra nsfe r by the De c la

rant of its intere s t in the Shopping C e nte r with a

c onc urre nt or subse que nt tra nsfe r of its obliga

t ions a s De c la

rant to the p urc ha se r or tra

nsfe re e and the purc ha se r’ s or tra nsfe re e ’ s a ssum

ption of suc h obliga tions . . . .” T he REA de fine s “ Shopping C e nte r” a s “ [a ] ll of the re a l prope rty ” c ove re d by

the REA. C ha

rle ston did not a

d he re to the re quire m e nts of § 11.8 whe n it purporte d to tra nsfe r the De c l arant’ s R ights with a c onc urre n t
c onve y anc e of far le s s tha n its inte re st in a ll the re a l prope rty gove rne d by

the R EA. B e c a

use C ha rle ston did not a ssign theDe c la rant’ s R ights subse que n tly or 3c onc urre ntly to a sa l e or tra

nsfe r of its inte re st in a ll of the re a l prope rty gove rne d by the REA, the distric t c ourt c orre c tly found tha

t C ha rle ston’ s purporte d ora l transfe r of the De c l arant’ s R ights did not c om port with the

R EA a nd wa s the re fore inva lid a n d une nforc e a

ble
. 4. The distric t c ourt a lso c orre c tly de te rm ine d tha t the Se ttle m e nt Agre e m e n t
e xe c ute d by

C ha rle ston a nd C NB upon C h arle ston’ s de fa ult unde r the De e d of Trust una m biguously provide d for the tra

nsfe r of the De c la

ra nt’ s R ights from C ha rle ston to C

NB via a Truste e ’ s Sa le
. 5. The De e d of Trust e xpre ssly provide d tha

t “ [a ] ll rights tha

t [C h arle ston]
m ay have a s de c l a

rant unde r any

c ove n ants, c onditions or re stric tions a ffe c ting the Prope rty ” we re inc lude d a s pa rt of the Trust Esta

te . And, unde r the te rm s of the Se ttle m e nt Agre e m e nt, C NB a gre e d to “ fore c lose or c a use the oc c urre nc e of a

de e d of trust sa le with re s pe c t to the De e d of Trust, in a c c orda nc e with a

p plic a ble sta te la w.” B e c a use the Se ttle m e nt Agre e m e nt is not “ s usc e ptible to m o re tha n one inte rpre tation,” S

h e lton v . She lton , 78 P.3d 507, 510 (Nev. 2003), a nd its plain la ngua ge una

m biguously provide d for the De c la

rant’ s R ights to tra

nsfe r to C NB via a Truste e ’ s Sa le , the distric t c ourt c orre c tly c onc lude d tha t C ha rle ston’ s inte re st in the De c la

rant’ s R ights a

utom a tic a lly

pa sse d to C NB at the c onc lusion of the Truste e ’ s Sa le , C

harmic o r, Inc . v . Bradshaw Fin. C o . , 550 P.2d 413, 415 (Nev. 41976). W e hold, the re fore , tha t the distric t c o urt prope rly instruc te d the ba

nkruptc y
c ourt to a ward sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

v or of C NB and R

A Southe a st. AFFIRM E D.

5