N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B ANK OF AM E R IC A, N.A.,

Pla i ntiff-c ounte rde fe nda nt-Appe lle e , v. LAKEVIEW

OW N ER S’ ASSOC IATION; e t a l., De fe nda

nts,
and TRP FUND V, LLC ,

De fe nda nt-c ounte r-c la im
3rd-pa rty -pla intiffAppe lla nt,
v. ELIZAB ETH A. PETER SON,

Third-pa rty -de fe n da

nt. No. 20-16626

D.C . No. 2:16-c v-00635-APG-B NW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt 

# F IL ED NOV 17 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.for the Distric t of Ne v a da Andre w P. Gordon, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 15, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , W . FLETC HER , a nd M ILLER , C irc uit Judge s. TRP Fund V, LLC (“ TRP” ) a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to B ank of Am e ric a , N.A. (“ B ANA” ) in a quie t titlea c tion. C o untry wide Hom e Loa

ns (“ C ountry

wide ” ), and by

e xte nsion its pa

re nt c om p a ny , B ANA, wa s the s uc c e ssor in intere st to a De e d of Trust on the

re side ntia l prope rty

at issue
. Whe n the hom e owne rs’ a s soc iation (“ HOA” ) fore c lose d on theprope rty , it m a ile d
c opie s of the Notic e of De fa ult a nd Notic e of Sa le to the hom e owne r a nd B ANA’ s pre d e c e ssor in intere s t but did not notify e ithe r C ountry

wide or B ANA. The distric t c o urt rule d tha

t the fore c losure sa le “ d id not e xtinguish [B ANA’ s] de e d of trust,” e v e n though B A

NA ha d m a de no a

tte m pt to te nde r the supe rpriority portion of the HOA’ s lie n, ba se d on Ne va da ’ s e xc use of te nde r doc trine
. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wthe distric t
c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt de novo. Fe d. Home Loan Mortg. C

orp. v .

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 2SFR Inv

s. Pool 1, LLC

, 893 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th C ir. 2018). W e a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to B ANA. The Ne va d a

Supre m e C ourt e xpla ine d the e xc use of te nde r doc trine unde r Ne va da la w in 7510 Pe rla De l Mar Av e Trust v . Bank of Ame ric a, N

.A. (“Pe rla”) , 458 P.3d 348 (Ne v . 2020) (e n ba nc ). Ge n e ra lly , a

n HOA ha s a

“ supe rpriority

lie n that , whe n prope rly fore c lose d upon, e xtinguishe s a first de e d of trust.” Id. at 348 (c iting SFR Inv

s. Pool 1, LLC

v . U.S. Bank

, N .A. , 334 P.3d 408, 409 (Nev. 2014)). The de e d of trust be ne fic ia ry c an pre se rve its intere st a fte r fore c losure by te nde ring the s upe rpriority

portion of this lie

n be fore the fore c losure sa le
. Id. (c i ting Bank of Ame ric a, N

.A. v . SFR Inv

s. Pool 1, LLC

, 427 P.3d 113, 116 (Nev . 2018)). The Pe rla doc trine , howe ve r, e ntire ly e xc use s the be n e fic ia

ry from m aking a te nde r
atte m pt whe re “ e vide nc e shows tha t the pa rty e ntitle d to pa

ym e nt ha d a

known polic y of re je c ting suc h pa

ym e nts.” Pe rla , 458 P.3d a t 349. This doc trine a

pplie s he re . In sworn te stim ony , re pre se ntative s of Ale ssi & Koe nig, LLC (“ Ale s si” ), the HOA’ s a ge nt, sta t e d tha t, during the

re le va nt tim e pe riod, Ale ssi c ate goric a lly re fuse d B ANA’ s te nde r atte m pts be c a use the y
c onta ine d la

ngua ge to the e ffe c t tha

t a c c e pta nc e of te nde r would c ure any HOA de fic ie nc y

in full. Em

ploy e e s of B ANA a

n d its le ga l re pre se ntative in HOA fore c losure sa le s, M ile s, B a ue r, B e ngstrom

& W inte rs, LLP (“ M ile s B a ue r” ),
3te stifie d tha

t B ANA kne wof this policy . C ontra ry to TR P’ s a rgum e nts othe rwise , Pe rla doe s not furthe r re quire e ithe r proof of re lia nc e on the HOA’ s polic y or
e vide nc e of a

fa ile d te nde r atte m

pt in thec a se at issue . A known policy suffic e s. Se e Pe rla , 458 P.3d a

t 351 (a p p ly ing e xc use of te nde r doc trine e ve n though junior lie n holde r’ s atte m

p t to te nde r “ wa s insuffic ie nt to c o nstitute a va lid te nde r” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly re lie d on tria l te stim o ny

in unre late d c a se s to
re a c h its holding. In the

Ninth C irc uit, “una

uthe ntic ate d doc um e nts c annot be
c onside re d on a

m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt,” Hal Roac h Studios, Inc

. v . Ric h ard Fe ine r & C

o., Inc
. , 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th C ir. 1989), so the distric t
c ourt c ould not re ly

on una uthe ntic ate d

le tte rs from

Ale ssi to M ile s B a

ue r, se e Bloc k v . C

ity of Los Ange le

s , 253 F.3d 410, 419 (9th C ir. 2001) (la y ing out
re quire m e nts for a

uthe ntic at ing doc um e nts a t sum m a ry judgm e nt). Howe ve r, B ANA prope rly

a uthe ntic ate d the tria l te s tim ony it pre se nte d. Se e Orr v . Bank of Ame ric a, N

T & SA , 285 F.3d 764, 776 (9th C ir. 2002) (c i ting Fe d. R . C iv. P. 80). The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly he ld tha t the e xc use of te nde r doc trine a pplie s
and tha t B ANA’ s prope rly

pre se nte d undispute d e vide nc e showe d tha t Ale ssi ha d a known polic y

of re je c ting B ANA’ s te nde r atte m pts. B ANA’ s inte re st in the prope rty is the re fore pre se rve d. AFFIRM E D.
4