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 cledpope) 

# 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 federalquestion 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

2 We 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