N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
U.S. B ANK, N.A., As Truste e for the Holde rs of the W m a l t

2006-AR 8 Trust, Pla i ntiff-c ounte rde fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt,
v. ALESSI & KOENIG, LLC ; ANTELOPE C ANYON HOM EOW

NER S ASSOC IATION,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s, SFR INVESTM ENTS POOL 1, LLC , De fe nda n t-c ounte r-c la im antc ross-c la i m ant-Appe lle e , v. NATIONSTAR

M OR TGAGE LLC ; B ANK OF AM E R IC A, NA,

C ross-c la im -de fe nda

ntsAppe lla nts. No. 20-17449 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-01423-JC M -PAL
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# F IL ED

FEB 23 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Appe a l from the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 18, 2022 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c K EOW

N a nd W . FLETC HER , C i rc uit Judge s, a nd B ENNETT, *** Distric t Judge
. U.S. B ank, N.A., Na

t ionsta r M ortga ge , LLC , a

nd B ank of Am e ric a , N.A. (c olle c tive ly , “ B anks” ) a

ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to SFR Inve stm e nts Pool 1, LLC(“ SFR ” ) a ga inst theB a nks in the i r quie t title
a c tion. B ank of Am e ric a , N.A. (“ B ank of Am e ric a ” ) he ld a de e d of trust on the
re side ntia l prope rty

at issue . The prope rty

is subje c t to the C ove na

nts, C onditions,
and R e stric tions of the Ante lope C any on Hom e owne rs Assoc iation (“ HOA” ). W he n the hom e owne r be c am e de linque nt on he r HOA a sse ssm e nt pa ym e nts, Ale ssi & Koe nig, LLC (“ A& K” ), re pre se nting theHOA, fore c lose d on the prope rty . Ac c ording to M ile s , B a ue r, B e rgstrom

& W inte rs LLP (“ M i le s B a ue r” ), whic h wa s re ta ine d by

B ank of Am e ric a , B ank of Am e ric a se nt a te nde r c he c k for

* * The pa

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

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

* * * The Honora

ble R ic ha rd D. B e nne tt, Unite d

State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of M ary la

nd, sitting by

de signa tion. 2$1,440 to A& K in a n e ffort to sa

tisfy the HOA’ s supe rpriority lie n on the prope rty . M ile s B a u e r’ s re c o rds showe d

tha t the c he c k wa s re t

urne d. On c ross m otions for sum m ary judgm e nt, the distric t c ourt gra nte d sum m ary judgm e nt to SFR . The c ourt he ld tha t, in spite of the te nde r a tte m

pt, “ SFR is
e ntitle d to a

de c l ara tory

judgm e nt tha

t the B anks’ first de e d of trust wa s
e xtinguishe d pursua

nt to theprope rly

c onduc t e d fore c losure sa le .” The B anks
a ppe a l the grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt to SFR

and the de nia l of sum

m a ry judgm e nt to the m . 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 . SFR Inv s. Pool 1, LLC

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

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to SFR and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. B ank of Am e ric a ’ s te nde r le tte r an d c he c k, ha d the y be e n de live re d, would have pre s e rve d its de e d of trust on the prope rty . Unde r Ne va da

la w, a hom e owne rs’ a ssoc i a tion ha s “ a supe rpriority

lie n tha t, whe n prope rly

fore c lose d upon, e xtinguishe s a first de e d of trust.” 7510 Pe rla De l Mar Av e Tr. v . Bank

of Ame ric a , N

.A. , 458 P.3d 348, 348 (Nev. 2020) (e n ba nc ) (c itingSFR Inv

s. Pool 1, LLC

v . U.S. Bank

, N .A. , 334 P.3d 408, 409 (Nev. 2014)
3(e n ba

nc )). The holde r of a first de e d of trust c an, howe v e r, pre se rve its inte re st
e ve n in the fa c e of a

n HOA fore c losure “ by te n de ring the supe rpriority portion of the H OA’ s lie n be fore the fore c losure sa l e is he l d.” Id. (c iting Bank of Ame ric a, N .A. v . SFR Inv

s. Pool 1, LLC

, 427 P.3d 113, 116 (Nev . 2018) (e n ba nc )). “ The full supe rpriority

am o unt c onsists of nine

m o n ths of unpa id HOA due s a n d a ny unpa id c h arge s for m a inte na nc e and nuisa

n c e a bate m e n t.” Bank

of Ame ric a, N

.A.
v . Arlington W

. Tw ilight Home o w ne rs Ass’n , 920 F.3d 620, 623 (9th C ir. 2019);
ac c ord SFR Inv

s . , 427 P.3d a

t 117. He re , B ank of Am e ric a

wrote a c he c k for nine m onths of unpaid HOA due s
a t a ra te of $160 pe r m onth. This is suffic ie nt to te nde r the supe rpriority lie n whe n

“ [t] he le dge r d[oe s ] not indic a te tha t the prope rty

ha d inc urre d a

ny c ha rge s for
m a inte na nc e or nuisa

nc e a bate m e nt.” Arlington , 920 F.3d a t 623; ac c ord SFR Inv s . , 427 P.3d a

t 118. In a ddition, the

la ngua ge tha

t a c c om pa nie d B ank of Am e ric a ’ s te nde r le tte r wa s not im pe rm issibly

c o nditiona l
. Arlington , 920 F.3d a t 623; SFR Inv

s. , 427 P.3d a

t 118; Satic oy

Bay LLC Se rie s 133 Mc Lare n v . Gre e n Tre e Se rv ic ing LLC , 478 P.3d 376, 379 (Nev. 2020) (e n ba nc ). SFR is the re fore not e ntitle d to sum

m a ry judgm e nt. Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse the de c ision of the distric t c o urt in fa

v o r of SFR

Inve stm e nts Pool 1, LLC
.

4Howe v e r, with re spe c t to B ank of Am e ric a ’ s c ross-m o tion for sum m a ry judgm e nt, SFR

prope rly ra ise s a ge nuine dispute of m a te ria l fa c t a s to whe t

he r de live ry of the te nde r c he c k e ve r oc c urre d. Though the B anks ha ve produc e d a
sc re e nshot sugge sting tha t the c he c k wa s de live re d a n d the n re t urne d by A& K, othe r e vide nc e indic a te s tha t the te nde r le tte r and c he c k m ay not ha ve be e n de live re d . A& K’ s re c ords c onta in e ntrie s tha t re fle c t othe r c om

m unic a tions with M ile s B a u e r but do not re fle c t re c e ipt of a te nde r a tte m

p t. M ore ove r, M ile s B a ue r’ s te nde r le tte r, unlike its othe r c om m unic a tions with A& K, doe s not c onta in
a nota tion tha t it wa s “ se nt via

first c la ss m a il.” In the fa c e of this mi xe d e vide nc e , sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the B anks is not a

ppropria te . W e the re fore re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

5