BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. V. SANDOR FEHER, No. 20-15420 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 18 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., FKA Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, Successor by Merger to BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-15420 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02939-RFB-BNW MEMORANDUM* Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE GROVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant, and SANDOR FEHER, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 8, 2021** * 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). Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Sandor Feher appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in this quiet title action brought by Bank of America, N.A. and Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Berezovsky v. Moniz, 869 F.3d 923, 927 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Feher failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Fannie Mae’s interest in the subject property had been extinguished by the foreclosure sale. See id. at 928 (“[T]he Federal Foreclosure Bar applies to any property for which the [Federal Housing Finance Agency] serves as conservator and immunizes such property from any foreclosure without Agency consent.” (citing 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(1), (3)). Feher’s motions to transmit exhibits (Docket Entry Nos. 15 and 34) are denied. See Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Papers not filed with the district court or admitted into evidence by that court are not part of the clerk’s record and cannot be part of the record on appeal.”). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 2 20-15420 appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 3 20-15420

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.