US BANK V. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, No. 18-16006 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 13 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. BANK, N.A., No. Plaintiff-counterdefendant-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-16006 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01128-GMN-VCF MEMORANDUM* v. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Defendant-counter-claimantAppellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 10, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: BEA, COLLINS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”), which purchased the subject real property at a foreclosure auction instituted by a homeowners’ association (“HOA”), appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against it and in * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). favor of U.S. Bank N.A., as Trustee for GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-6, AssetBacked Certificates Series 2006-6 (“U.S. Bank”). Reviewing de novo, Berezovsky v. Moniz, 869 F.3d 923, 927 (9th Cir. 2017), we reverse. The district court granted summary judgment to U.S. Bank based solely on the ground that, under Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), the HOA “foreclosed under a facially unconstitutional notice scheme” and therefore the “HOA foreclosure cannot have extinguished” U.S. Bank’s deed of trust on the property. This court recently held, however, that Nevada’s HOA foreclosure scheme is not facially unconstitutional because our decision in Bourne Valley was based on a construction of Nevada law that the Nevada Supreme Court has since made clear was erroneous. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2019) (recognizing that Bourne Valley “no longer controls the analysis” in light of SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2018)). The judgment in favor of U.S. Bank against SFR is REVERSED. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum disposition. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
