March 5, 2024, Oral Arguments
Mass Land Acquisition, LLC vs. Dist. Ct. (Sierra Pac. Power Co.)
Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
Deutsche Bank TR. CO America vs. Sfr Invs. Pool 1, LLC
Carson City – 2:00 p.m. – Full Court
Mass Land Acquisition, LLC vs. Dist. Ct. (Sierra Pac. Power Co.)
Docket No. 85693
Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
Real Party in Interest Sierra Pacific Power Company, d/b/a NV Energy, sought to exercise eminent domain to obtain an easement across Mass Land Acquisition, LLC’s land, to build a gas pipeline. NV Energy moved for, and was granted, immediate occupancy, allowing it to enter and alter MLA’s property. The issues on appeal are whether, under Nevada Constitution Article 1, sec. 22, NV Energy can exercise eminent domain, whether the district court can make the public-use determination or whether that determination must be made by a jury, and whether the district court can require MLA to pay a bond before obtaining a stay.
Deutsche Bank TR. CO America vs. Sfr Invs. Pool 1, LLC
Docket No. 85073
Carson City – 2:00 p.m – Full Court
This is an appeal from a district court order in an action to quiet title arising from an HOA foreclosure. After the foreclosure sale, appellant, the holder of the first deed of trust on the property, sought quiet title against respondent and the HOA. The district court granted summary judgment for appellant, determining that the homeowner’s payments satisfied the superpriority portion of the HOA’s lien. Respondent appealed to this court, which reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this court’s instructions in 9352 Cranesbill Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 136 Nev. 76, 459 P.3d 227 (2020). On remand, the district court analyzed the intent of the homeowner, then the intent of the HOA, and then the underlying equities as prescribed by Cranesbill. The district court determined that the homeowner’s payments were insufficient to satisfy the superpriority portion of the HOA lien. ISSUES: (1) did the district court err in determining that the homeowner’s payments were insufficient to satisfy the superpriority portion of the HOA lien under Cranesbill; (2) is the Cranesbill test a workable standard for determining the application of a homeowner's partial payments toward the superpriority portion of the HOA lien; and (3) in the alternative, did the district court err in declining to consider appellant’s alternative argument that the foreclosure sale must be set aside on equitable grounds?