N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
NORM AN GAR

AND, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. JPM OR GAN C HASE B A NK; C ALIFOR

NIA REC ONVEYANC E C OM PANY; M OR TGAGE ELEC T R ONIC R EGISTR ATION SER VIC E, INC .; WA M U B ANK, F.A.; R EC ONSTR

UC T C OM PANY, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 11-17277 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-00212-LRHVPC
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 Larry R . Hic ks, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

13, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

N a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s , a n d M ARB LEY, Distric t Judge
. ** 

# FIL ED
JUN 27 2013 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.
** The Honora

ble Alge non L. M arble y , Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa tion.Pla intiff Norm an Ga ra nd (“ Garand” ) a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gran ting sum

m ary judgm e nt for De fe nda

nts J.P. M orga

n C ha se B a

nk (“ C ha se ” )
and C a lifornia

R e c onve y anc e C om

pa ny (“ C R C ” ) on Ga

rand’ s sta tutorily de fe c tive fore c losure an d

unjust e nric hm e nt c la im s. In 2007, Ga

rand e nte re d into two mo rtga ge loa ns with W a shington M

utua l B ank (“ W a M u” ), both se c ure d by de e ds of trust on which C R C wa s na m e d truste e . The first m ortga ge loa

n wa s subse que ntly

e ndorse d in bla

nk a nd purporte dly
a c quire d by

Fre ddie M a c . Afte r the purporte d sa le , the FDIC took W a M u into
re c e ive rship. C ha s e a lle ge s tha t, at tha t point, the

FDIC tra nsfe rre d a ll of W a M u’ s
se rvic ing rights to C ha s e , inc l uding theright to se rvic e Ga rand’ s first m ortga ge loa n (whic h W a M u ha d re t a ine d a fte r the sa le to Fre ddie M a c ). C ha se a lso took posse s sion of theorigina l first m ortga ge note . Ga rand de fa u lte d on tha t loa n a nd, in Oc tobe r 2009, C R C initia t e d non-judic ia l fore c losure proc e e d ings on C ha se ’ s be ha lf. Ga

ran d subse que ntly

brought this wrongful fore c losure a c tion. None of Ga

rand’ s a rgum e nts a ga i nst sum

m ary judgm e n t a

re pe rsua sive
. Garand first c onte nds tha

t C R C ’ s Notic e of De fa

ult a nd Ele c tion to Se l l wa s de fe c tive unde r N.R .S. § 107.080. Ne va d a ’ s nonjudic ia l fore c losure sta tute c onfe rs on the truste e a

powe r of sa le “ to se c ure the pe rform anc e of a n obliga tion or the pa ym e nt of a

ny de bt ... a fte r a

bre a c h of the obliga

tion for whic h the transfe r is
se c urity .” N.R .S. § 107.080(1). The sta tue furthe r a

uthoriz e s a

truste e to e xe c uteand c a

u se to be re c orde d the notic e of de fa ult a n d notic e of sa le that a

re sta tutory pre re quisite s to fore c losure
. Se e N.R .S. § 107.080(2)(c ), (3), (4). He nc e , a s the origina l truste e nam e d on the first de e d of trust, C R C wa s a prope r pa

rty to e xe c ute
and re c ord the fore c losure notic e s at issue in this c a se . M ore ove r, C R C ’ s fa ilure to disc lose the c urre nt holde r of the m ortga ge note did not re nde r the notic e of de fa ult de fe c tive : at the tim e C R C re c orde d the notic e s of de fa ult a nd sa le , Ne v a da

la w im pose d no suc h re quire m e nt for non-owne roc c upie d re side ntia l prope rtie s. Although the Ne va da le g isla

ture subse que ntly
re vise d N.R .S. § 107.080(2)(c ) to re quire disc losure of the c urre nt note holde r in the n otic e of de fa

ult, the se provisions did not go into effe c t until Oc tobe r 2011. Se e Asse m b. B . 284 § 9, 76th Le g., R e g. Se ss. (Ne v.2011) (e na c ting N.R .S. § 107.080(2)(c )(1)-(6)); Asse m b. B . 273 § 5.9, 76th Le g., R e g. Se ss. (Ne v.2011) (a m e nding e ffe c tive dat e of Asse m bly B ill 284 to Oc tobe r 1, 2011 a nd a m e nding § 14.5 of the bill to provide that the § 107.080 a m e ndm e nts a

pply only to notic e s of de fa ult file d on or a fte r Oc tobe r 1, 2011). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not
e rr in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt for C R C and C ha se a s to Ga rand’ s c la i m s unde r N.R .S. § 107.080. Garand a lso a lle g e s tha

t C R C fa ile d to c om

ply with N.R .S. §§ 107.085 a nd 107.086. The se provisions, howeve r, a pply only to owne r-oc c upie d pre m ise s a nd thus a re not a pplic a ble to the fore c losure proc e e dings a t issue he re . S

e e N.R .S. §§107.085(1)(b), 107.086(1). The re fore , the distric t

c o urt did not e rr in gra

nting
sum m ary judgm e nt for C R C and C ha se on those c la i m s. Garand’ s c la im s for unjust e nric hm e nt a lso fa il. Unde r Ne va da la w, “ [a ] n
a c tion ba s e d on a

the o ry of unjust e nric hm e nt is not a va ila ble whe n the re is a

n
e xpre s s, writte n c ontra c t .” Le ase partne rs C

orp. v . Robe rt L. Brook

s Trust Date d N ov e mbe r 12, 1975 , 942 P.2d 182, 187 (Nev. 1997) (c iting 66 Am .Jur.2d Re stitution § 6 (1973)). He re , the rights a nd obliga tions of thepa

rtie s a re dic tate d by e xpre s s c o ntra c ts—

t he first m ortga ge note and de e d of trust. Thedistric t c ourt the re fore c orre c tly

gran te d sum

m a ry judgm e nt for C R C and C ha se on Ga rand’ s
c la im s for unjust e nric hm e nt. Fina lly , Pla i n tiff c onte n d s tha t the note and de e d of trust a re une nforc e a

ble
and/or inope ra

ble . The se argum e nts a

re a lso without m

e rit. Ne va da

pe rm its instrum e nts e ndorse d in bla nk to be ne gotia

t e d by tra n sfe r of posse ssion a lone
. N.R .S. § 104.3205; Ede lste in v . Bank of N e w York Me llon , 286 P.3d 249, 261 (Ne v. 2012). In this c a se , be c a use C ha s e ha s posse ssion of theorigina l note
e ndorse d in bla

nk, it ha s the right to e nforc e the unde rly i ng de b t. Se e Ede lste in , 286 P.3d a

t 261 (c iting Le

y v a v . N ational De

fault Se rv ic ing C

orp ., 255 P.3d 1275, 1280 (Ne v. 2011)). Furthe rm ore , though the re wa s no c orre sponding a ssignm e nt of the de e d of trust, this did not se ve r the se c urity

instrum e nt from

the de bt. Ne va da follows theR e sta

te m e nt a pproa c h to note s a

nd m ortga ge s, whe re in “ aprom issory

note an d a

de e d of trust a

re a utom a tic a lly

tra nsfe rre d toge the r unle ss the p artie s a gre e othe rwise .” Id . at 257 (c i ting R e sta t e m e nt (Third) of Prop.: M ortga ge s § 5.4 (1997)). Thus, he re , tra nsfe r of the m ortga ge note a lso e ffe c te d a transfe r of the de e d of trust. C ha se is the re fore e ntitle d to e nforc e both. Nor did a ny bre a c h of the note or de e d of trust re nde r the se c ontra c ts
une nforc e a

ble . The doc um e nts im

pose d no se pa

ra te c ontra c tua l obliga

tion on W a M u , C ha s e or C R C to disc lose the tra nsfe r or a ssignm e nt of the note or de e d of trust. Inde e d, pa

ra g ra ph 20 of thede e d of trust spe c ific a l ly provide s tha

t “ [t] he Note or a pa rtia l inte re st in theNote (toge the r with this Se c urity Instrum e nt) c an be sold one or m ore tim e s without prior notic e to B orrowe r.” While pa ra gra ph 20 doe s m andate tha

t writte n notic e be issue d to the borrowe r if the re is a c ha nge in loa n se rvic e r, the re c ord indic a te s tha t C ha se fully c om

plie d with tha

t re quire m e n t. Garand a lso c onte nds tha

t pa ra gra ph 20 im pose s a n obliga tion to se ll the note and de e d

of trust toge the r, and tha t the re fore tra

nsfe rring the note without a lso
a ssigning the

de e d of trust c onstitute d

bre a c h of c ontra c t. In fa c t, the note an d de e d of trust we re sold “ toge the r,” be c a use the m ortga g e followe d the note
a utom a t ic a lly , without the ne e d for a c orre sponding a ssignm e nt. Garand a lso a

rgue s tha t, unde r para gra

ph 23 of thede e d of trust, only the Le nde r— not the loa

n se rvic e r or the truste e
— c an invoke the powe r of sa le and
c a use the truste e to e xe c ute a notic e of de fa

ult. Eve n if pa ra gra ph 23 did prohibitthe t

ruste e from initia

ting fore c losure proc e e dings a t a loa n se rvic e r’ s re que st, C R C ’ s a c tions he re would not be im prope r. As the e ntity

in posse s sion of thenote , C ha se is e ntitle d to e nforc e both thenote and the de e d of trust. Ac c ordingly , C ha se ha s a uthority , a s be ne fic ia

ry unde r the se c urity

instrum e nt, to c a

use C R C to unde rtake fore c losure proc e e dings. The re wa s, the re fore , no bre a c h of c ontra c t in that re s pe c t. For the fore going re a sons, we c onc l ude tha t the distric t c ourt c orre c tly gran te d sum

m a ry judgm e nt for C R C and C ha s e on a ll c la im s. AFFIRM E D.