FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JAN 31 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., No. 17-16577
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
3:16-cv-00116-RCJ-VPC
v.
THUNDER PROPERTIES, INC., MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant,
and
ESPLANADE AT DAMONTE RANCH
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; ATC
ASSESSMENT COLLECTION GROUP,
LLC, AKA Angius & Terry Collections,
LLC,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 23, 2020**
San Francisco, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: W. FLETCHER, R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS,*** Senior
District Judge.
Appellant Thunder Properties, Inc. (“Thunder”) appeals the district court’s
grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”)
on BANA’s action to quiet title to a property in Reno, Nevada (the “Property”).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review de novo the district
court’s grant of summary judgment. See Barnes v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 934
F.3d 901, 906 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm.
At the time of the 2010 foreclosure sale on the Property, Esplanade at
Damonte Ranch Homeowners’ Association (the “HOA”) made clear, as both the
foreclosing party and the purchaser at foreclosure, that it was purchasing only the
sub-priority portion of its homeowners’ association lien. Because the intent of the
parties dictates the extent of the estate conveyed, see City Motel, Inc. v. State ex
rel. State Dep’t of Highways, 336 P.2d 375, 377 (Nev. 1959), amendment of the
foreclosure deed in 2013 did not expand the HOA’s rights in the property to
include the super-priority portion of the lien. Accordingly, the district court
properly concluded that BANA’s priority position as the holder of the deed of trust
***
The Honorable William K. Sessions III, Senior District Judge for the
District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
2
was never extinguished, and Thunder purchased the property subject to the deed of
trust.
The district court also correctly concluded that Thunder is not a bona fide
purchaser for value without notice. Given the plain terms of the initial foreclosure
deed, Thunder was on at least inquiry notice that it was purchasing subject to the
deed of trust. See Allison Steel Mfg. Co. v. Bentonite, Inc., 471 P.2d 666, 668–69
(Nev. 1970).
The Court has considered Thunder’s remaining arguments and finds them to
be without merit.
AFFIRMED.
3