Preview:

the request of the beneficiary, Union Bank, recorded a notice of default. On September 17, 2010, Union Bank also filed a complaint against Carefree Willows seeking the appointment of a receiver and to enforce the assignment of rents and deposits relating to the property pursuant to its deed of trust. On October 22, 2010, Carefree Willows filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 in bankruptcy court. This petition resulted in an automatic stay in the foreclosure proceedings and Union Bank was barred from selling the property. Union Bank then assigned the promissory note and the beneficial interest under the deed of trust to real party in interest AG/ICC Willows Loan Owner, LLC (AG) on November 10, 2010. AG subsequently filed a complaint for breach of contract under the guaranty agreements against the guarantors. AG eventually moved for summary judgment. The district court granted AG partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, but requested further briefing on the issue of damages. The guarantors now request a writ of mandamus or prohibition vacating the district court's order granting partial summary judgment as to liability, directing the district court to enter an order denying AG's motion for summary judgment, and prohibiting the district court from conducting further proceedings regarding damages. The guarantors contend that Union Bank's cumulative actions triggered their anti-deficiency defenses under NRS 40.495(3), and therefore, AG could not prove damages until the completion of the trustee's sale. They also argue that if there are no damages after a trustee's sale, then there is also no liability. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we do not recount them further except as necessary for our disposition.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2

(0) 1947A

Writ relief is appropriate "A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion." International Game Tech. v. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (footnotes omitted); see NRS 34.160. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and it is within this court's discretion whether a petition will be considered. Cote H. v. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 36, 39, 175 P.3d 906, 908 (2008). It is well-settled that this court may review a petition if there is "an important issue of law [that] needs clarification." International Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 559. This court reviews de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment under NRCP 56(c). Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005). Courts may grant summary judgment when the evidence does not create a genuine issue of material fact. Id. When considering a motion for summary judgment, courts must view the evidence and any reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. The district court erred in granting AG partial summary judgment Pursuant to NRS 40.495(2), the guarantors waived the oneaction rule.' Regardless, the guarantors contend that NRS 40.495(3)

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

1-AG argues that the one-action rule does not apply to the right to appoint a receiver. We agree. AG did not violate the one-action rule. Nevada's one-action rule states that "there may be but one action for the recovery of any debt, or for the enforcement of any right secured by a mortgage or other lien upon real estate." NRS 40.430(1). A violation of the one-action rule forfeits the security and mandates a reconveyance of the deed of trust. Component Systems v. District Court, 101 Nev. 76, 8283, 692 P.2d 1296, 1301 (1985). AG's security interest in the deed of trust continued on next page...

3

(0) I947A

allows them to assert deficiency defenses because Union Bank recorded a notice of default and filed suit seeking the appointment of a receiver and to exercise an assignment of rents and deposits. The guarantors maintain that because they were entitled to deficiency defenses, AG must complete the trustee's sale before the district court can properly determine the amount of contract damages and liability, if any. This court reviews issues of statutory construction de novo. Hardy Companies, Inc. v. SNMARK, LLC, 126 Nev. ,, 245 P.3d 1149, 1153 (2010). When interpreting a statute, we first look to its plain language and "[w]hen the language . . . is clear on its face, 'this court will not go beyond [the] statute's plain language." J.E. Dunn Nw. v. Corus Constr. Venture, 127 Nev. ,, 249 P.3d 501, 505 (2011) (second alteration in original) (quoting Great Basin Water Network v. State Eng'r, 126 Nev. 234 P.3d 912, 918 (2010)). NRS 40.495(3) states: "If the obligee maintains an action to foreclose or otherwise enforce a mortgage or lien and the indebtedness or obligations secured thereby, the guarantor . . . may assert any legal or equitable defenses provided pursuant to the provisions of NRS 40.451 to 40.4639, inclusive." 2 In Walters v. District Court, we held that once a

...continued is maintained during the pendency of the foreclosure proceedings and this litigation.

The Nevada Legislature amended NRS 40.495 in 2011, but these amendments do not apply to this case or our analysis because they went into effect in June 2011 and AG commenced this action in March 2011. See 2011 Nev. Stat., ch. 311,

Download 59586.pdf

Nevada Law