BANK OF AMERICA, NA, FKA Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, successor by merger… v. Santa Barbara Homeowners Association; Absolute Collection Services, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BANK OF AMERICA, NA, FKA
Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP,
successor by merger to BAC Home Loans
Servicing, LP; FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiffs-Counter-
Defendants-Appellees,
v.
SANTA BARBARA HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION; ABSOLUTE
COLLECTION SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants,
and
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC,
Defendant-Counter-Claimant-
Cross-Claimant-Appellant,
v.
KATY L. LEE, individually, and Trustee
or her successors in trust, under the Klee
No. 19-16922
D.C. No.
2:16-cv-02768-MMD-DJA
MEMORANDUM*
FILED
NOV 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 4 --

Living Trust, dated August 10, 2006,
Cross-Claim-Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2022**
San Jose, California
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Real property in Nevada was sold at a homeowners’ association foreclosure
sale. Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) was in
conservatorship and owned the deed of trust at the time. Fannie Mae’s servicer,
Plaintiff Bank of America (“BOA”), served as the deed of trust’s record
beneficiary. Plaintiffs sought quiet title against the purchaser of the property,
Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”). SFR counterclaimed,
contending that it acquired title free and clear of all preexisting lien interests. The
district court held that 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) precludes extinguishment of lien
interests through foreclosure without the consent of the Federal Housing Finance
Agency (“FHFA”). FHFA did not consent. Accordingly, the court entered
summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. SFR timely appeals. We affirm.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2

-- 2 of 4 --

1. The first issue, which we review de novo, Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
322 F.3d 660, 665 (9th Cir. 2003), concerns the timeliness of BOA’s claim. The
foreclosure sale occurred on January 15, 2013, and BOA filed its complaint on
December 2, 2016, more than three years later. SFR contends that a three-year
statute of limitations for tort claims applies, so that BOA’s claim is untimely. We
decided this very issue in M & T Bank v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 963 F.3d
854 (9th Cir. 2020), after the briefing in the present case was complete. We held
that 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(12)(A)(i) governs and that it provides a six-year statute of
limitations. Id. at 856. Although the district court relied on a different ground, it
correctly entered judgment in BOA’s favor.
2. In addition, SFR argues that the district court abused its discretion in
denying Rule 56(d) relief. See Midbrook Flowerbulbs Holland B.V. v. Holland
Am. Bulb Farms, Inc., 874 F.3d 604, 612 (9th Cir. 2017) (stating standard of
review). SFR asserts that additional discovery is needed to determine Fannie
Mae’s interest. The district court permissibly ruled that additional discovery was
unnecessary and duplicative, because the record clearly establishes Fannie Mae’s
property interest and FHFA’s lack of consent to extinguish Fannie Mae’s deed of
3

-- 3 of 4 --

trust. See Daisy Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 445 P.3d 846, 850 (Nev. 2019);
Berezovsky v. Moniz, 869 F.3d 923, 933 (9th Cir. 2017).
SFR’s Motion to Certify a Question of Law to the Nevada Supreme Court,
Docket No. 36, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --