Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Trust 2003-NC2, Mortgage… v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 1236 Dusty Creek Street

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, as Trustee for Trust 2003-NC2,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2003-NC2 agent of Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter Capital I Inc.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 1236 DUSTY
CREEK STREET,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
DURANGO TRAILS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.; HOMEOWNER
ASSOCIATION SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.
No. 20-15432
D.C. No.
2:17-cv-01667-APG-EJY
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 16, 2022
San Jose, California
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
NOV 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Real property in Nevada was sold at a homeowners’ association (“HOA”)
foreclosure sale after the homeowner failed to pay required HOA assessments.
The holder of the first deed of trust, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., sued the
current owner of the property, seeking a declaration that its interest in the property
survived the foreclosure sale. The district court awarded summary judgment to
Deutsche Bank, and defendant Saticoy Bay LLC appealed. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review de novo the district court’s grant of
summary judgment, Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. v. ConocoPhilips Co., 546 F.3d
1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008). “We may affirm a district court’s judgment on any
ground supported by the record, whether or not the decision of the district court
relied on the same grounds or reasoning we adopt.” Atel Fin. Corp. v. Quaker Coal
Co., 321 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
1. The Nevada Supreme Court recently held that the relevant statute of
limitations is four years. U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Thunder Props., Inc., 503 P.3d 299,
304 (Nev. 2022). Deutsche Bank filed its complaint less than four years after the
foreclosure sale, and its action is therefore timely.
2. Under Nevada law, an HOA lien consists of two parts: a “superpriority”
portion and a “subpriority” portion. See U.S. Bank, N.A. v. S. Highlands Cmty.
Ass’n., 999 F.3d 1185, 1188 (9th Cir. 2021). Although the superpriority portion of

-- 2 of 4 --

3
the lien takes priority over the first deed of trust at the time of a foreclosure sale,
see Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.3116(2)-(3), the subpriority portion does not. Therefore,
if a homeowner’s default is cured as to the superpriority portion of the lien, a
foreclosure on the remaining (subpriority) portion will not extinguish a first deed
of trust. In such a situation, the sale is “void as to the holder of the first deed of
trust.” 9352 Cranesbill Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 459 P.3d 227, 228 (Nev.
2020).
Deutsche Bank introduced evidence showing that the unpaid HOA
assessments as of the recording of the Notice of Lien were $410. Saticoy Bay does
not contest the accuracy of this figure but argues that the superpriority portion of
the lien is always nine months’ worth of HOA assessments—regardless of
payments that the homeowner made. That is incorrect: Nevada law gives an HOA
“a superpriority lien on an individual homeowner’s property for up to nine months
of unpaid HOA dues.” SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 334 P.3d 408,
409 (Nev. 2014) (en banc) (emphases added). We therefore conclude that the
superpriority portion of the lien was $410.
Saticoy Bay concedes that the former homeowner paid at least $630 to the
HOA during the relevant period. And it has not offered any evidence to rebut
Deutsche Bank’s evidence that the HOA applied payments to the oldest past-due
assessments. Accordingly, the former homeowner’s payments cured the

-- 3 of 4 --

4
superpriority portion of the lien, rendering the foreclosure sale void as to Deutsche
Bank’s interest in the property.
3. Under Nevada law, a “void sale, in contrast to a voidable sale, defeats the
competing title of even a bona fide purchaser for value.” U.S. Bank, Nat’l Ass’n
ND v. Res. Grp., LLC, 444 P.3d 442, 448 (Nev. 2019). Because the sale is void, it
makes no difference whether Saticoy Bay is a bona fide purchaser.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --