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

R JR N HOLDINGS, LLC , Pla i ntiff-c ounte rde fe nda nt-Appe lle e , v. C ARR INGTON M OR TGAGE SER VIC ES, LLC , De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt, B AC HOM E LOANS SER VIC ING, LP, De fe nda n t-c ounte r-c la im antAppe lla nt, R EX AR C HAM B A ULT,

C ounte r-de fe nda

nt-Appe lle e , v. RH KIDS, LLC ,

Third-pa rty -pla intiffAppe lle e , No. 17-15932 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-01257-JC M -NJK
M EM OR ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

OCT 20 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.v.

M OR TGAGE ELEC TR ONIC R EGISTR

ATION SYSTEM S, INC ., Third-pa rty -de fe n da

ntAppe lla nt. 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 Ja

nua ry 23, 2020 ** Subm ission va c a te d Ja

nua ry 31, 2020 R e subm i tte d Oc tobe r 20, 2020 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER

and R . NELSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SESSIONS, *** Distric t Judge
. This c a se is one of m any

ste m m ing from

Ne va da ’ s hom e owne rs’ a ssoc iation fore c losure sta

t ute , Ne v . R e v. Stat. § 116.3116. W e a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision in fa

vor of a ppe lle e RH Kids. On De c e m

be r 23, 2008, Pulte

M ortga ge , LLC (the origina l le n de r – “ OL” ) issue d a loa n to R honda Dav i s to purc ha s e prope rty . The loa n wa s se c ure d by

a

* * 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 W illia m K. Se ssions III, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ve rm ont, sitting by de s igna tion. 2de e d of trust, re c orde d on Ja nua ry 6, 2009. On August 6, 2010, OL a ssigne d its be ne fic ia l inte re st in thede e d of trust to B AC Hom e Loa n s Se rvic ing, LP (“ B AC ” ). The a ssignm e nt wa s re c o rde d on August 11, 2010. Pursua nt to Ne v. R e v. Stat. § 116.3116, the Ha c ie nda North Hom e owne rs’ Assoc iat ion (“ H OA” ) c la im e d a supe rpriority lie n on Da

v is’ s prope rty

for
a sse ssm e nts, ba se d on the prope rty ’ s C ove na nts, C onditions, a

n d R e stric tions. On April 12, 2011, Absolute

C olle c tion Se rvic e s, LLC (“ AC S” ), a c ting on be ha lf of HOA, re c orde d a

notic e of de linque nt a s se ssm e nt lie n indic a ting tha t Da vis owe d $1,074.00. On July

18, 2011, AC S re c orde d a notic e of de fa

ult a nd e le c tion to se ll, whic h indic a te d tha

t Da vis owe d $2,009.41. Then, on Nove m be r 10, 2011, AC S
re c o rde d a

notic e of truste e ’ s sa le , whic h indic a te d Da vis owe d $3,530.72. On Ja nua ry 30, 2012, B AC , a s the a ssigne e of the be n e fic ia l inte re s t in the de e d of trust on Da

vis’ s prope rty , se n t a

le tte r via c ounse l to AC S “ re que sting a nd offe ring to pa

y the supe rpriority

am ount ‘ upon pre se ntation of a de quate proof.’ ” On Fe brua

ry 17, 2012, AC S re sponde d, in re le v ant pa rt, [I] n c on v er sat ions pa st, y ou ha d sta te d y our c lie nts [sic ] position of pa y ing for 9 m onths o f a sse ssm e nts
. . . a ll oc c urring be fore fore c losure by y our c lie nt. I am m aking yo u aw ar e that it is our vie w that w ithout the a c tion of f ore c losure , a 9 m onth State m e n t of Ac c o unt i s n ot va lid. At t h i s ti m e, I re spe c tfully re que st that y ou subm i t the T rustees D eed Upon Sa le
3showing y our c l i en t ’s p o s se s sion of the prope rty and the date that it

oc c urre d. At t h at t im e , w e w ill provide a 9 m onth supe r p riority lie n State m e n t of Ac c o unt.

. . . W e re c ogniz e y our c lie nt ’s position a s the first m ortga ge c om pa ny a s the se nior lie n holde r. Should y o u provide us with a re c orde d Notic e of De fa ult or Notic e of Sa le , we will hold our ac tion so y our c lie nt m ay proc e e d
. (Em pha s is in original ). B AC took no furthe r a c tion. On April 17, 2012, HOA c onduc te d a fore c losure sa le , at whic h R e x Arc ham b a ult bought the

prope rty for $5,000, a

p proxim a te ly

e ight pe rc e nt of the prope rty ’ s fa ir m arke t va lue . In Fe brua ry 2014, Arc ham

ba ult quitc la i m e d the prope rty to R JR N Holdings, LLC(“ R JR

N” ), whic h quitc la i m e d the prope rty to R H Kids, LLC (“ RHK” ) in De c e m be r 2015. On June 16, 2015, R

JR N file d a c om pla int (prior to quitc la im ing the prope rty to R HK) a ga inst Da

v i s, HOA, a

nd the pre se nt De fe nda

n ts. R HK, a fte r
re c e iving theprope rty , file d a third-pa rty c om pla int a ga inst thepre se nt De fe nda nts on April 28, 2016, “ a lle ging two c a use s of a c tion: (1) quie t title ; a nd (2) injunc tive
re lie f.” The pa

rtie s file d c ross-m otions for sum m a ry judgm e nt. The distric t c ourt de nie d De fe nda

nts’ m otion for sum

m ary judgm e n t

and gra nte d R HK’ s m otion. W e re vie w de novo c ross-m otions for sum m ary judgm e nt. Pintos v . Pac ific C re ditors Ass’n , 605 F.3d 665, 674 (9th C ir. 2010). “ A ple a to quie t titledoe s not

4re quire any

pa rtic ula r e le m e nts, but e a c h pa

rty m ust ple a d a

nd prove his or he r own
c la im to the prope rty

in que stion a

nd a pla intiff’ s right to re lie f the re fore de pe nds on supe riority

of title .” C

hapman v . De utsc he Bank N at’l Trust C

o. , 302 P.3d 1103, 1106 (Ne v. 2013) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tions omitte d). Appe lla nts a rgue (1) tha

t the ir c orre sponde nc e with AC S c onstitute d va lid te nde r; (2) a lte rna tive ly , tha t AC S’ s re sponse to B AC ’ s offe r c onstitute d a re je c tion of te nde r, whic h would e xc u se form a l te n de r; a nd (3) e ve n

if the c o urt re

je c ts the first a nd se c o nd a

rgum e nts, tha

t e quity re quire s tha

t we se t a side the fore c losure
sa le
. W e thought tha

t the re s ult of this c a se m ight be c o ntrolle d by a Ne va da Supre m e C ourt de c ision, Bank of Am., N

. A. v . Thomas J

e ssup, LLC Se rie

s VII , 435 P.3d 1217, 1218 (Ne v . 2019) ( J e ssup I ). Afte r le arning tha

t the Ne v a da

Supre m e C ourt would bere h e aring J e ssup I e n ba

nc , we withdre w subm ission pe nding tha t C ourt’ s de c ision. Afte r the Ne va da Supre m e C o urt issue d its e n ba nc de c ision, Bank of Ame ric a, N

.A. v . Thomas J

e s sup, LLC

Se rie s VII , 452 P.3d 255 (Ne v. 2020) ( J e ssup II ), a ppe lla nts file d a 28j le tte r inform ing us of thede c ision. Appe l la n ts file d a m o tion to lift the

sta y we ha d e nte re d pe nding thede c ision in J e ssup II , Dkt. No. 56, which we now gra nt. As it turns out, the Ne va d a Supre m e C ourt’ s de c ision in J

e ssup II w a s unpublishe d a nd doe s not c ontrol theoutc om e in
5this c a s e . Ne v. R
. App. P. 36(c )(2).

Howe v e r, anothe r inte rve ning c a se doe s c ontrol theoutc om e . In 7510 Pe rla De l Mar Av e nue Trust v

. Bank of Ame ric a, N

.A. , 458 P.3d 348, 349 (Nev. 2020), the Supre m e C ourt of Ne va da e va luate d c orre sponde nc e tha t wa s ide n tic a l in substa nc e to the c orre sponde nc e he re . The c o rre s ponde nc e “ re que ste d tha t [the le tte r’ s re c i pie nt] ide ntify the supe rpriority

portion of the

lie n
— i .e ., the am ount the B ank m ay

rightfully pa y to pre se rve its de e d of trust— and offe re d to pa y tha t sum upon proof of the sam e .” Id. The Supre m e C ourt of Ne va da he l d tha t the
c orre sponde nc e did not c onstitute va lid te nde r. Id . B a se d

on Pe rla de l Mar , we
c onc lude tha

t the distric t

c ourt wa s c orre c t in thec a se be fore us in c onc luding tha t the re wa s no va lid te n d e r. If AC S ha d “ a known polic y of re je c ting a ny pa ym e nt for le s s tha

n the full lie n am ount,” B A C ’ s “ obliga t ion to te nde r the supe rpriority portion of the

lie n” would ha ve be e n e xc use d. Id. at 351. B A C points only to the la ngua ge of the
c orre sponde nc e to support its c o nte ntion tha t AC S ha d suc h a

polic y . B AC ’ s
c onte ntion, re ly ing sole ly on the la n gua g e of the le tte r, tha

t AC S ha d a

known polic y of re

je c ting pa ym e n t c annot survive sum

m a ry judgm e nt. Fina lly , a

ppe lla nts
argue “ that e quity re quire d se tting a side the fore c losure sa le ” e v e n if te nde r wa s not e xc use d. The distric t c ourt wa s c orre c t in its re j e c tion of tha

t argum e nt.
6The othe r issue s ra ise d do not c ha nge our c onc lusion. The Ne v a da sta tute is not pre e m pte d by the Fe de ra l Housing Adm inistra tion’ s m o rtga ge insura

nc e program . Bank

of Am. v . Arlington W

e st Tw i light Home ow ne rs Assoc

. , 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th C ir. 2019). And B AC ’ s fa c ia l due proc e ss c h a lle nge fa ils be c a use Bourne Valle y C ourt Tr. v . W

e lls Fargo Bank

, N A , 832 F.3d 1154 (9th C ir. 2016), no longe r c ontrols theana ly sis. Arlington , 920 F.3d a t 623–24. Finally , be c a

use the re wa s no va lid te n d e r, RHK provide d suffic ie nt e v ide nc e tha t it wa s a bona fide purc ha se r that provide d va lue without knowle dge or notic e of an e arlie r inte re st. Se e N e v. R e v. Stat. § 111.180(1); se e also Baile y v . Butne r , 176 P.2d 226, 234 (Ne v. 1947). Eve n

a ssum i ng tha

t R HK ha d a duty to inquirewhe the r the supe rpriority

am ount wa s te nde re d, the fa c t of the fore c losure sa le itse lf satisfie d this duty
. AFFIRM E D.

7