OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC V. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, ET AL, No. 19-16889 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 18 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Plaintiff-counterdefendant-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-16889 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01757-JAD-VCF v. MEMORANDUM* SUNDANCE AT THE SHADOWS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, Defendant, and SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Defendant-counter-claimantAppellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 16, 2022** San Jose, California Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Real property in Nevada was sold at a homeowners’ association foreclosure sale. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation was in conservatorship and owned the deed of trust at the time. The loan servicer, Plaintiff Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, sought to quiet title. The purchaser of the property, Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, then brought a crossclaim also seeking to quiet title. Defendant contends that it acquired title free and clear of all preexisting lien interests, but the district court held that 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) precludes extinguishment of lien interests through foreclosure without the consent of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”). FHFA did not consent. Accordingly, the court entered summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Defendant timely appeals. The only issue on appeal concerns the timeliness of Plaintiff’s claim. The foreclosure sale occurred on August 2, 2013, and Plaintiff filed its complaint on June 26, 2017, more than three years later. Defendant contends that a three-year statute of limitations for tort claims applies, so that Plaintiff’s claim is untimely. We decided this very issue in M&T Bank v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 963 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2020), after the briefing in the present case was complete. We held that 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(12)(A)(i) governs and that it provides a six-year statute of limitations. 963 F.3d at 856. Accordingly, reviewing the grant of 2 summary judgment de novo, Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 660, 665 (9th Cir. 2003), we affirm the judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. Defendant’s Motion to Certify a Question of Law to the Nevada Supreme Court, Docket No. 31, is denied. AFFIRMED. 3
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.
