based on an erroneous interpretation of the controlling law and did not
reach the other issues colorably asserted. Accordingly, we
REVERSE the order granting judgment on the pleadings AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with this order.
S
Hardest
ed_A η
Douglas
CHERRY, J., concurring:
For the reasons stated in the SFR Investments Pool I, LLC v.
U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. 334 P.3d 408 (2014), dissent, I disagree
that respondent lost its lien priority by virtue of the homeowners
association's nonjudicial foreclosure sale. I recognize, however, that SFR
Investments is now the controlling law and, thusly, concur in the
disposition of this appeal.
J.
cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge
Wright Law Group
Akerman LLP/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A