Todd v. Fort Defiance Housing Corp., Inc. ( 2014 )

 foreclosure action and the district court granted the trustee summary
judgment, finding that issue preclusion barred reexamination of many of
the issues, that Todd had made key admissions, and that Todd failed to
provide sufficient evidentiary support for her remaining arguments and
defenses. Accordingly, the district court ordered the sale of Todd's home.
Todd appealed, and argues, among other things, that various
defects exist in the hypothecation agreement and the bankruptcy
proceedings, which should be construed liberally in her favor. She also
argues that Bank of Nevada reconveyed the property to her, that the
hypothecation agreement collateral was impaired, and that her homestead
exemption precludes the trustee from judicially foreclosing on her
property. This court reviews the district court's grant of summary
judgment de novo. Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d
1026, 1029 (2005).
In the bankruptcy litigation giving rise to this action, the
bankruptcy courts examined the legitimacy of the hypothecation
agreement and determined it to be a valid, consensual lien that appellant
granted on her property that took priority over her assertion of the
homestead exemption. While appellant attacks procedural issues in the
bankruptcy court, argues factual matters that differ from the bankruptcy
courts' findings, and asserts that a policy of title insurance supports her
position, these issues were considered and decided by the bankruptcy
courts. Nevada state courts have no power to review the findings of a
federal bankruptcy court and must apply issue preclusion if the issues and
parties are identical, the issues were actually and necessarily litigated,
and a final ruling on the merits was issued. See Five Star Capital Corp. v.
Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055, 194 P.3d 709, 713 (2008); Clark v.
ColumbiallICA Info. Servs., Inc., 117 Nev. 468, 481, 25 P.3d 215, 224
(2001); see generally Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 170-71 (1938)
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A cledp
(explaining, in the context of a bankruptcy case, that state courts have no
power to interfere with federal court decisions arising out of federal
question jurisdiction, such as bankruptcy court decisions, even when state-
law issues are resolved in the context of those decisions, and must give
preclusive effect to such decisions). Under these circumstances, we
conclude that the district court did not err in applying issue preclusion to
bar the relitigation of these issues. And while appellant complains about
the bankruptcy courts' decisions and application of federal procedure,
those arguments are not properly before us and appellant must raise them
in the federal courts in her appeals from those judgments. See Stoll, 305
U.S. at 170-71.
To the extent that appellant raised issues of fact that were not
decided by the bankruptcy courts, we agree with the district court that
appellant failed to provide evidence supporting her remaining arguments.
Wood, 121 Nev. at 729, 121 P.3d at 1029. Therefore, we perceive no error
in the district court's grant of summary judgment to the trustee and its
decision to order that the property be sold. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
/Acua sat,
Hardesty
ope) La
J. wat , J.
Cherry
2 We have considered appellant's remaining arguments and conclude
that they lack merit.
On March 5, 2014, appellant filed a document that appears to be a
copy of a stay motion that she filed in the district court. We interpret this
to be a notice that appellant filed such a stay motion in the district court
and it therefore requires no action from this court.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A ea
cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge
Brenda B. Todd
Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A eto