(indicating that, absent clear error, a district court's factual
determinations will not be disturbed).
Appellant next contends that the assignment produced by
respondents was "void" because it did not recite the amount of
consideration that U.S. Bank paid for the assignment. According to
appellant, this failure to recite the consideration paid violates NRS
111.210. We disagree. NRS 111.210, part of Nevada's statute of frauds,
applies to "contract[s] . . . for the sale of. . . an[ ] interest in lands." NRS
111.210(1). A deed of trust assignment, however, is not a contract.
Rather, it is a document akin to a receipt that provides a written record of
who is entitled to foreclose on secured property as a means of satisfying a
borrower's obligation under a promissory note. Cf. Einhorn v. BAG Home
Loans Servicing, Inc., 128 Nev. , , 290 P.3d 249, 254 (2012)
(indicating that an assignment's purpose is to complete the chain of title of
the person seeking to enforce the note and to proceed with foreclosure).
Thus, while a signed writing is required to transfer the beneficial interest
in a deed of trust, see NRS 111.205, this writing does not need to recite
consideration to accomplish its purpose. See Leyva, 127 Nev. at , 255
P.3d at 1279 (discussing the applicability of NRS 111.205 without
reference to NRS 111.210). Accordingly, the district court properly
determined that the deed of trust assignment produced by respondents
was not "void" for failure to comply with NRS 111.210(1). Edelstein, 128
Nev. at , 286 P.3d at 260.
Appellant finally contends that the district court should have
held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether an assignment was
missing.' Specifically, because Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
'Appellant also contends that respondents failed to establish that
U.S. Bank is a holder in due course. There is a difference between being a
SUPREME COURT
continued on next page...
OF 2
NEVADA
(0) 1947A
Inc.'s website indicated that RBS Financial Products owned appellant's
loan at some point, appellant contends that an evidentiary hearing was
necessary to clarify the chain of title. Based upon the documentation
presented to the district court, it was not clearly erroneous for the district
court to conclude that respondents had provided a complete chain of title,
Edelstein, 128 Nev. at , 286 P.3d at 260, and the district court was
within its discretion to reach this conclusion without conducting an
evidentiary hearing. FMR 21(2) (providing the district court with the
discretion to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary).
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
P ie)?Sit , C.J.
Gibbons
J
Parraguirre Douglas
J
Saitta
...continued
note "holder" and a "holder in due course," and this court has never held
that a deed of trust beneficiary seeking to foreclose must be a holder in
due course. See NRS 104.3302 (requiring a note holder to satisfy various
criteria in order to be a holder in due course); Leyva, 127 Nev. at , 255
P.3d at 1280-81 (recognizing that a note holder is entitled to enforce the
note).
SUPREME COURT
OF 3
NEVADA
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge
Mark L. Mausert
The Cooper Castle Law Firm, LLC
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF 4
NEVADA
(0) 1947A