SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

foreclosure action and the district court granted the trustee summary 

judgment, finding that issue preclusion barred reexamination of many of 

the issues, that Todd had made key admissions, and that Todd failed to 

provide sufficient evidentiary support for her remaining arguments and 

defenses. Accordingly, the district court ordered the sale of Todd's home. 

Todd appealed, and argues, among other things, that various 

defects exist in the hypothecation agreement and the bankruptcy 

proceedings, which should be construed liberally in her favor. She also 

argues that Bank of Nevada reconveyed the property to her, that the 

hypothecation agreement collateral was impaired, and that her homestead 

exemption precludes the trustee from judicially foreclosing on her 

property. This court reviews the district court's grant of summary 

judgment de novo. Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 

1026, 1029 (2005). 

In the bankruptcy litigation giving rise to this action, the 

bankruptcy courts examined the legitimacy of the hypothecation 

agreement and determined it to be a valid, consensual lien that appellant 

granted on her property that took priority over her assertion of the 

homestead exemption. While appellant attacks procedural issues in the 

bankruptcy court, argues factual matters that differ from the bankruptcy 

courts' findings, and asserts that a policy of title insurance supports her 

position, these issues were considered and decided by the bankruptcy 

courts. Nevada state courts have no power to review the findings of a 

federal bankruptcy court and must apply issue preclusion if the issues and 

parties are identical, the issues were actually and necessarily litigated, 

and a final ruling on the merits was issued. See Five Star Capital Corp. v. 

Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055, 194 P.3d 709, 713 (2008); Clark v. 

ColumbiallICA Info. Servs., Inc., 117 Nev. 468, 481, 25 P.3d 215, 224 

(2001); see generally Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 170-71 (1938) 

2 

(0) 1947A cledp 
ope) L a 

wat 

Cherry 

J. , J. 

(explaining, in the context of a bankruptcy case, that state courts have no 

power to interfere with federal court decisions arising out of federal 

question jurisdiction, such as bankruptcy court decisions, even when statelaw issues are resolved in the context of those decisions, and must give 

preclusive effect to such decisions). Under these circumstances, we 

conclude that the district court did not err in applying issue preclusion to 

bar the relitigation of these issues. And while appellant complains about 

the bankruptcy courts' decisions and application of federal procedure, 

those arguments are not properly before us and appellant must raise them 

in the federal courts in her appeals from those judgments. See Stoll, 305 

U.S. at 170-71. 

To the extent that appellant raised issues of fact that were not 

decided by the bankruptcy courts, we agree with the district court that 

appellant failed to provide evidence supporting her remaining arguments. 

Wood, 121 Nev. at 729, 121 P.3d at 1029. Therefore, we perceive no error 

in the district court's grant of summary judgment to the trustee and its 

decision to order that the property be sold. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2 

/Acua sat, 

Hardesty 

2We have considered appellant's remaining arguments and conclude 

that they lack merit. 

On March 5, 2014, appellant filed a document that appears to be a 

copy of a stay motion that she filed in the district court. We interpret this 

to be a notice that appellant filed such a stay motion in the district court 

and it therefore requires no action from this court. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A ea 
cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge 

Brenda B. Todd 

Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A eto