NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 4 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, No. 18-15745
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:15-cv-01992-LDG-CWH
v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant,
GIAVANNA HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant-Appellee,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NA,
Cross-Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 29, 2020
Portland, Oregon
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
In this timely appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b),
Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, challenges the district court’s grant of
partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Nationstar
Mortgage, LLC, and Cross-Defendant Bank of America, N.A. Reviewing de novo,
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Corte Madera Homeowners Ass’n, 962 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th
Cir. 2020), we affirm.
Because Bank of America tendered payment for the full amount of the
superpriority lien, the foreclosure sale was void as a matter of law. Bank of Am.,
N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass’n, 920 F.3d 620, 622–23 (9th Cir.
2019) (per curiam); Bank of Am., N.A. v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC (Diamond Spur),
427 P.3d 113, 117–19 (Nev. 2018) (en banc). We therefore do not reach the
district court’s two alternative grounds.
1. The amount of the tender was equal to or greater than the superpriority
portion of the lien. See Diamond Spur, 427 P.3d at 117 ("Valid tender requires
payment in full."). Bank of America’s check for $821.25 equaled nine overdue
assessments of $91.25 each. The ledger provided by the Giavanna Homeowners
Association "did not indicate that the property had incurred any charges for
maintenance or nuisance abatement, which are the only other fees that could have
been included in the superpriority amount. The tender thus was sufficient."
Arlington W., 920 F.3d at 623 (citation omitted).
2
2. The tender contained no impermissible conditions. See, e.g., Diamond
Spur, 427 P.3d at 118 (holding that a nearly identical letter contained no
impermissible conditions).
3. No genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Bank of America’s
agent—the law firm of Miles, Bauer, Bergstrom & Winters LLP—actually
delivered the check. The district court permissibly rejected SFR’s evidentiary
objections to the affidavit of Douglas Miles and its attachments. See Lowry v.
City of San Diego, 858 F.3d 1248, 1256 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) ("Evidentiary
rulings made in the context of summary judgment motions are reviewed for abuse
of discretion and can only be reversed if both manifestly erroneous and
prejudicial." (ellipsis and internal quotation marks omitted)). The affidavit, a copy
of the check, and a screenshot from the law firm’s case management software
demonstrated delivery. We are unpersuaded, on this record, that the lack of other
evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact.
4. We have considered SFR’s other arguments, but we find them
unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3