IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
W. WARN SPRINGS TRUST, No. 65572
Appellant,
vs.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., A
FILED
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, APR 1 5 2016
Respondent. TRACIE K. LINDEMAN
CLERK OFJUPPEME COURT
ORDER REVERSING IN PART, DEPUTY CLERK
VACATING IN PART AND REMANDING
This is an appeal from a district court summary judgment in a
quiet title action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Susan
Scann, Judge.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
respondent, concluding that, as a matter of law, the foreclosure sale did
not extinguish respondent's deed of trust. Having considered the parties'
arguments and the record, we conclude that summary judgment in favor
of respondent was improper. See Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724,
729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005) (reviewing de novo a district court's
decision to grant summary judgment). In particular, we disagree that
Nevada Association Services' (NAS) failure to fax respondent the notice of
sale rendered the foreclosure sale ineffective to extinguish respondent's
deed of trust when NRS Chapter 116 imposes no such requirement.' As
appellant introduced evidence sufficient to support a conclusion that NAS
'The facts of this case do not require us to decide what a
homeowners' association or its agent must do to comply with NRS
116.311635(1)(b)(2) (2005) when a lienholder directs the notice of sale to
SUPREME COURT be mailed to a different address from that listed in the public records.
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A
IL-11892
complied with NRS 116.311635(1)(b)(2) (2005), 2 we reverse the appealed
order insofar as it granted summary judgment in favor of respondent.
Based on the current record, however, we are unable to
conclude that appellant was entitled to summary judgment. 3 In
particular, we cannot determine from the record what significance, if any,
the district court gave to respondent's affidavit of non-receipt, and the
parties' briefs do not clearly address whether this affidavit created a
question of material fact as to whether the foreclosure sale extinguished
respondent's deed of trust. Cf. Wood, 121 Nev. at 731, 121 P.3d at 1031
(observing that "[t]he substantive law controls which factual disputes are
material"). Consequently, we are unable to meaningfully address this
issue in the first instance, and we therefore vacate the appealed order
insofar as it denied summary judgment in favor of appellant so that the
district court can consider this issue on remand.
Consistent with the foregoing, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED IN
PART AND VACATED IN PART AND REMAND this matter to the
district court for proceedings consistent with this order.
J.
Gibbons
2 Respondent does not contest the admissibility of appellant's
proffered evidence on appeal.
3 Inthis regard, we agree with the district court's reasoning as to
why NRS 116.31166 (1993) did not entitle appellant to judgment as a
matter of law.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(3) 1947A ce
cc: Hon. Susan Scann, District Judge
Kerry P. Faughnan
Greene Infuso, LLP
Gerrard Cox & Larsen
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A cagiDo