13ROWN 

COURT 

-•=t1-4 

CLERK 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

No. 81240 

FILED 

FEB 1 7 O2 

7963 LAURENA AVENUE TRUST, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 

F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS 

TRUSTEE FOR THE 

CERTIFICATEHOLDERS CWABS, 

INC., ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, 

SERIES 2005-AB4, 

Res e ondent. 

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE 

This is an appeal from a district court order granting summary 

judgment, certified as final under NRCP 54(b), in an action to quiet title. 

Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Timothy C. Williams, Judge.1 

The district court determined that the HONs 2013 foreclosure 

sale did not extinguish the first deed of trust because respondent's agent 

made a superpriority tender. In so doing, the district court presumably 

determined that respondent's 2017 counterclaims for quiet title and 

declaratory relief were timely under NRS 11.080s five-year limitations 

period. 

Having considered the parties arguments and the record, we 

conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment for 

respondent, albeit for a different reason. Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart 

Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. 592, 599, 245 P.3d 1198, 1202 (2010) (recognizing that 

this court may affirm the district court on any ground supported by the 

'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument 

is not warranted in this appeal. 

2 7. _-- os3t 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A .16Akt. 
record, even if not relied upon by the district court). In particular, 

respondent asserted tender as an affirmative defense in its March 2019 

answer to appellant's complaint in intervention. Statutes of limitations do 

not run against affirmative defenses. See Dredge Corp. v. Wells Cargo, Inc., 

80 Nev. 99, 102, 389 P.2d 394, 396 (1964) (Limitations do not run against 

defenses."), see also City of Saint Paul, Alaska v. Evans, 344 F.3d 1029, 

1033-34 (9th Cir. 2003) (examining "the interplay between statutes of 

limitations and defenses" and concluding that such limitations do not apply 

to defenses because "[w]ithout this exception, potential plaintiffs could 

simply wait until all available defenses are time barred and then pounce on 

the helpless defendane). Accordingly, respondent was not time-barred 

under any applicable limitations period from asserting tender.2 

Appellant additionally contends that the district court 

improperly granted respondent equitable relief and, relatedly, that the 

HOA sale purchaser was protected as a bona fide purchaser because 

evidence of the tender was not publicly recorded. However, we recently 

reiterated that those arguments are inapposite because a superpriority 

tender preserves a first deed of trust as a matter of law and does not 

constitute a "conveyance" that needs to be recorded. See Saticoy Bay LLC 

Series 133 McLaren v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 85, 478 

P.3d 376, 379 (2020) ("While a court's authority to look beyond a foreclosure 

deed in a quiet title action is an inherent equitable power, a valid tender 

cures a default 'by operation of law'—that is, without regard to equitable 

2To the extent appellant is suggesting that respondent needed to 

assert "tendee in the form of "an affirmative claim for relief instead of as 

an affirm.ative defense, we are not persuaded. As explained below, 

respondent was not seeking equitable relief by virtue of arguing that the 

superpriority tender preserved the first deed of trust. 

2 
arraguirre 

considerations." (internal citation omitted))3; id. (rejecting the argument 

that evidence of a tender needs to be recorded because "[t]endering the 

superpriority portion of an HOA lien does not create, alienate, assign, or 

surrender an interest in land." (quoting Bank of Am., N.A. v. SFR Invs. Pool 

1, LLC, 134 Nev. 604, 609, 427 P.3d 113, 119 (2018))). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.4 

/ 4-A J. , Sr.J. 

Hardesty Gibbons 

cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge 

TRILAW 

Law Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd. 

Wolfe & Wyman LLP 

Akerman LLP/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

3In this regard, and as appellant acknowledges in its reply brief, the 

subpriority portion of an HONs lien remains in default even after the 

superpriority default has been cured, meaning that the foreclosure deed's 

recitation of there being a "default" remains accurate. 

4The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the 

decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. 

3