Deutsche Bank National Trust v. Madeira Canyon Hoa ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 4 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST No. 19-16719
COMPANY, as Trustee for Holders of the
BCAP LLC Trust 2007-AA1, D.C. No.
2:16-cv-02603-RFB-CWH
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MADEIRA CANYON HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 2, 2020**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and KENDALL,*** District
Judge.
*
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).
***
The Honorable Virginia M. Kendall, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”) appeals the
district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in a declaratory judgment
action. The parties are familiar with the facts and we do not repeat them here. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s
grant of summary judgment, Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. D.M.S.I., LLC, 871
F.3d 751, 759 (9th Cir. 2019), and affirm.
The non-judicial foreclosure sale and all notices relating to it took place
during the pendency of the original property owner’s bankruptcy. A bankruptcy
triggers a “self-executing” and “automatic stay of actions by all entities to collect
or recover on claims.” Burton v. Infinity Cap. Mgmt., 862 F.3d 740, 746 (9th Cir.
2017) (citing 11 U.S.C § 362(a); In re Gruntz, 202 F.3d 1074, 1081 (9th Cir. 2000)
(en banc)). Although we have “not had occasion to decide whether notices filed
pursuant to Nevada’s non-judicial foreclosure statute” violate the stay, “acts that
immediately or potentially threaten the debtor’s possession of its property” do.
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Corte Madera Homeowners Ass’n, 962 F.3d 1103, 1110 (9th
Cir. 2020) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
While recognizing “violations of the automatic stay are void, not voidable,”
In re Schwartz, 954 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1992), the district court correctly
concluded that Deutsche Bank—a creditor, rather than a debtor or trustee—lacked
standing to challenge the violation of the stay. See In re Pecan Groves of Ariz.,
2
951 F.2d 242, 245 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that “a creditor has no independent
standing to appeal an adverse decision regarding a violation of the automatic
stay”). Notwithstanding Deutsch Bank’s attempts to narrow In re Pecan Groves’s
holding, it applies by its own terms to all actions “seek[ing] to enforce the
protections of the automatic stay,” id., and forecloses these arguments.
Deutsche Bank’s assertions about the purportedly inequitable nature of the
sale due to the low purchase price, and thus Elmer’s status as a bona fide
purchaser, are similarly unavailing. Nevada law requires “proof of some element
of fraud, unfairness, or oppression as accounts for and brings about the inadequacy
of price.” Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 2227 Shadow
Canyon, 405 P.3d 641, 643 (Nev. 2017) (citation omitted). Here, such proof is
lacking.
AFFIRMED. 1
1
Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to File Reply Brief (Dkt. 35) is granted.
Appellant’s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal (Dkt. 38) is denied.
Appellant’s Stipulated Motion to Dismiss Madeira Homeowners Association from
the appeal (Dkt. 42) is granted.
3