Citimortgage, Inc. v. Corte Madera Homeowners Ass'n. ( 2020 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 19 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., No. 17-16404
Plaintiff-counter- D.C. No.
defendant-Appellant, 2:16-cv-00398-JCM-GWF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CORTE MADERA HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION; et al.,
Defendants-counter-
claimants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 13, 2019
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, BERZON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
CitiMortgage, Inc. (“Citi”) appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to defendants on Citi’s claim for quiet title. Specifically, Citi
appeals the district court’s rejection of Citi’s due process challenge to Nev. Rev.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Stat. § 116.3116, and the district court’s ruling that the subject non-judicial
foreclosure sale should not be set aside in equity because Citi presented no
evidence that fraud, unfairness, or oppression caused an inadequate sale price.
Citi’s due process argument relies on Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells
Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016), but, as Citi acknowledged at oral
argument, Bourne Valley is no longer good law. After Bourne Valley was decided,
the Nevada Supreme Court held in SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. Bank of New
York Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248, 1253 (Nev. 2018) (en banc), that Nev. Rev. Stat.
§ 116.31168 incorporates the mandatory notice provisions of Nev. Rev. Stat. §
107.090. We recognized this holding in Bank of America N.A. v. Arlington West
Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). Citi’s
facial due process challenge is unavailing.
Citi also argues that the district court erred by concluding that there was no
evidence of fraud, oppression, or unfairness that justified setting aside Corte
Madera’s foreclosure sale. Under Nevada law, an inadequate price alone is
insufficient to set aside a sale. See Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Saticoy Bay LLC
Series 2227 Shadow Canyon, 405 P.3d 641, 648–49 (Nev. 2017). There must be
“proof of some element of fraud, unfairness, or oppression as accounts for and
brings about the inadequacy of price.” Id. at 643 (quoting Shadow Wood
2
Homeowners Ass’n v. N.Y. Cmty. Bancorp., 366 P.3d 1105, 1110 (Nev. 2016) (en
banc)). Here, the district court did not err by ruling that Citi failed to raise a
material issue of fact about whether fraud, unfairness, or oppression caused the
allegedly inadequate sale price.
AFFIRMED.
3