were based on an erroneous interpretation of the controlling law and did
not reach the other issues colorably asserted. Accordingly, we
VACATE the order denying preliminary injunctive relief,
REVERSE the order granting the motion to dismiss, AND REMAND this
matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this
order.'
°14.04 J.
Hardesty
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 Wells Fargo 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 these appeals.
1 The injunction imposed by our June 17, 2013, order is vacated.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A
cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge
Law Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd.
McCarthy & Holthus, LLP/Las Vegas
Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1907A .sfjff4r)