Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant opened three business accounts at Respondent Wells Fargo Bank. Respondent later unilaterally closed the three accounts, stating that the reason for the closure was because Appellant had been involved in a criminal activity. Appellant filed a complaint alleging defamation, false light, and declaratory relief. Appellant then filed a motion to compel Respondent to produce documents regarding the closure of her accounts, as well as the risk assessment processes and analysis for closing these accounts. The discovery commissioner decided that Respondent was not required to provide the requested records under the Bank Secrecy Act. The district court affirmed the commissioner’s report and recommendations but ordered Respondent to provide a privilege log concerning the subject matter at issue. After Respondent submitted a privilege log, the discovery commissioner recommended that the documents be deemed confidential. The district court affirmed and adopted the report and recommendations. Appellant’s cause of action for declaratory relief was ultimately dismissed by the district court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the discovery commissioner and the district court did not err in concluding that the documents at issue were protected by the Suspicious Activity Report privilege under the Bank Secrecy Act. View "Johnson v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat'l Ass'n" on Justia Law

When Respondent defaulted on a commercial guaranty agreement with Bank, Bank sued Respondent. Bank’s complaint sought from Respondent the deficiency allowed by Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.495(4). On June 18, 2013 Bank proceeded to foreclosure sale. Bank acquired the property at foreclosure. On January 16, 2014, Bank filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a deficiency judgment against Respondent. Respondent filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that because Bank let more than six months elapse between the date of the foreclosure sale and the date it filed its motion for summary judgment, Bank forfeited its right to obtain a deficiency judgment by operation of Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.455. Bank responded that its pre-foreclosure complaint satisfied all applicable requirements in Nev. Rev. Stat. Chapter 40. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent and against Bank. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Bank’s complaint against Respondent for the deficiency allowed by section 40.495(4) satisfied the requirements of Chapter 40. View "Bank of Nevada v. Petersen" on Justia Law

Catherine Rodriguez defaulted on her loan and elected for foreclosure mediation. At a third, unsuccessful mediation between Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, as the agent of the Bank of New York Mellon (BONY), and Rodriguez, Nationstar presented an uncertified, inaccurate copy of the promissory note. Thereafter, BONY filed a complaint for judicial foreclosure. Upon learning that the note presented at the third mediation was inaccurate, Rodriguez filed a petition for judicial review of the mediation against Nationstar and BONY (collectively, Nationstar). The district court excused the untimeliness of the petition based on good cause and found that the note’s certification was false and that Nationstar knew of the falsity. The court sanctioned Nationstar $100,000. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition for judicial review because the filing of such a petition is not permitted beyond the thirty-day time period provided in Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Rule 21(2), even when a party discovers fraud months after the mediation. View "Nationstar Mortgage v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

After the Borrower defaulted on a loan, the Guarantor (the petitioner) allegedly breached the guaranty. Omni (the real party in interest) filed a complaint against the Guarantor for the alleged default on the guaranty. At issue on appeal is whether a creditor's amended complaint seeking a deficiency judgment against petitioner may relate back to a timely complaint against a different party pursuant to NRCP 15(c), so as to satisfy NRS 40.455(1)'s six-month deadline for an application for a deficiency judgment against petitioner. The court concluded that the district court erred in permitting the real party in interest's amended complaint to relate back to the timely original complaint pursuant to NRCP 15(c), so as to satisfy the six-month deadline for an application for a deficiency judgment against petitioner, as required by NRS 40.455(1); the timely complaint against the borrowers does not constitute a valid application for deficiency judgment against the unnamed petitioner; and petitioner did not waive his right to object under NRS 40.455(1). Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court erred in denying petitioner's motion for summary judgment in the guaranty action and motion to dismiss in the borrower action, and the court granted the petition for writ of mandamus. View "Badger v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct." on Justia Law

Hawley McIntosh purchased a home located within a common-interest community. McIntosh’s first mortgage lender subsequently foreclosed on McIntosh’s home. Scott Ludwig purchased the property and subsequently transferred the property by quitclaim deed to Ikon Holdings, LLC. Ikon acknowledged that it acquired the property subject to the homeowner association’s (Horizons) superpriority lien but disagreed that the lien included nine months, rather than six months, of unpaid assessments or the collection fees and foreclosure costs Horizon was seeking to recoup. Thereafter, Ikon filed the underlying declaratory relief action. The district court granted partial declaratory relief, concluding that Horizons’ covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) limited its superpriority lien to an amount equal to six months of assessments, which did not offend Nev. Rev. Stat. 116.3116(2)’s superpriority provision providing for nine months of assessments. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) a superpriority lien for common expense assessments pursuant to section 116.3116(2) does not include collection fees and foreclosure costs incurred by an HOA; and (2) an HOA’s CC&Rs that purport to create a superpriority lien covering certain fees and costs over six months preceding foreclosure are superseded by the terms of the superpriority lien created by section 116.3116(2). View "Horizons at Seven Hills Homeowners Ass’n v. Ikon Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellants filed a promissory note that was secured by a deed of trust on their property. At the time that Appellants defaulted, Respondent was the holder of the note and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) was the beneficiary of the deed of trust securing the note. After Appellants filed for bankruptcy, MERS assigned its interest in the deed of trust to Respondent. Before the assignment was recorded, Respondent filed a proof of claim in Appellants’ bankruptcy claiming that it was a secured creditor. Respondent then filed a motion for relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay so that it could foreclose on Appellants’ property. Appellants argued that Respondent was not a secured creditor because it did not have a unified note and deed of trust when the bankruptcy petition was filed. The United States Bankruptcy Court certified two questions of law to the Supreme Court concerning the legal effect on a foreclosure when the promissory note and deed of trust are split at the time of foreclosure. The Supreme Court concluded (1) when the promissory note is held by a principal and the beneficiary under the deed of trust is the principal’s agent at the time of foreclosure, reunification of the note and the deed of trust is not required to foreclose; and (2) as a matter of law, the recording of an assignment of a deed of trust is a ministerial act. View "In re Montierth" on Justia Law

Appellants guaranteed two commercial loans that loans were eventually assigned to Bank. When the properties securing the commercial loans were foreclosed, Bank brought a breach of guaranty action against Appellants. At issue at trial was the application of Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.459(1)(c), which reduces the amount of some deficiency judgments. The district court concluded that section 40.459(1)(c) would be retroactive if applied to Appellants’ loans because the statute took effect after the loans were assigned and that Appellants were therefore liable for the full deficiency. The Supreme Court subsequently published Sandpointe Apartments v. Eighth Judicial District Court, which held that section 40.459(1)(c) is prospective if there has been no foreclosure sale on the underlying loan as of the date the statute was enacted. The foreclosure sale in this case occurred more than two months after section 40.459(1)(c) took effect. The Fords filed a motion pursuant to Nev. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) asking the district court to set aside the judgment against them. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Rule 60(b)(5) is not an appropriate avenue for seeking relief based on new or changed precedent, even if enforcement might be inequitable. View "Ford v. Branch Banking & Trust Co." on Justia Law

Under Nev. Rev. Stat. 104.4406, a customer generally must exercise reasonable promptness in examining a bank statement and within thirty days notify the bank of any unauthorized transactions. Plaintiff, a law firm, sued Bank of America after discovering that the firm’s employee had used unauthorized signatures to withdraw funds from the firm’s operating account with the bank. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Bank of America, concluding that all claims were time-barred under section 104.4406 because there was no dispute that the bank statements received by the firm were sufficient to notify it of the unauthorized activity on the firm’s account. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) genuine issues of material fact remained as to the delivery method of the bank statements, the content of online and received-in-branch statements, and Bank of America’s exercise of due care in paying certain unauthorized transactions; and (2) unauthorized account transactions that occur within the one-year period before the customer gives notice to the bank are not time-barred under section 104.4406(6)’s one-year period of repose because the statute does not differentiate between a single forgery and multiple forgeries by the same wrongdoer, and therefore, the one-year period of repose begins to run with each successive forgery. View "C. Nicholas Pereos, Ltd. v. Bank of Am." on Justia Law

Appellants borrowed money from Colonial Bank and granted the bank a security interest in their real property. The FDIC assigned Appellants’ loan to Branch Banking and Trust Company, Inc. (BB&T) after placing Colonial into receivership. After Appellants defaulted on their loan, BB&T instituted an action for a judicial foreclosure of the secured property. Two years later, Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.459(1)(c), which implements certain limitations on the amount of a deficiency judgment that can be recovered by an assignee creditor, became effective. After the property was sold at a sheriff’s sale, BB&T filed a motion seeking a deficiency judgment against Appellants for the remaining balance of the loan. The district court awarded a deficiency judgment to BB&T, finding that section 40.459(1) did not apply to BB&T’s application for a deficiency judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed on the grounds that section 40.459(1)(c) was preempted by the federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) to the extent that section 40.459(1)(c) limits deficiency judgments that may be obtained from loans transferred by the FDIC, as section 40.459(1)(c) conflicts with FIRREA’s purpose of facilitating the transfer of the assets of failed banks to other institutions. View "Munoz v. Branch Banking & Trust Co." on Justia Law

Respondent borrowed nearly $17 million from Appellant’s predecessor-in-interest. The loan was secured by real property located in Texas. The Guarantors entered into a guaranty agreement to pay any debt remaining if Respondent defaulted. When Respondent defaulted, the Texas property was sold at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale under Texas law. Appellant then sought a deficiency judgment against Respondent and the Guarantors under Nevada law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent and the Guarantors, finding that Appellant’s nonjudicial foreclosure in Texas did not comply with the terms of Nev. Rev. Stat. 107.080. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.455(1), which permits a creditor or deed-of-trust beneficiary to bring an action for a deficiency judgment after the foreclosure sale or trustee’s sale held pursuant to section 107.080, does not preclude a deficiency judgment in Nevada when the nonjudicial foreclosure sale upon property located in another state is conducted pursuant to that state’s laws instead of section 107.080. Remanded. View "Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Windhaven & Tollway, LLC" on Justia Law