WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. V. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, No. 21-16566 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 15 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee No. 21-16566 for the Certificateholders of Banc of America Funding Corporation, Mortgage PassD.C. No. Through Certificates, Series 2005-B, 2:20-cv-01277-GMN-VCF Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2024** Pasadena, California Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and MENDOZA and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the Certificateholders of Banc of America Funding Corporation, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-B * 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). (“Wells Fargo”), appeals from the district court’s order granting SFR Investment Pool 1, LLC’s (“SFR”) motion to dismiss. The district court granted the motion, concluding that the statute-of-limitations period began once the foreclosure sale occurred and that Wells Fargo’s quiet-title claim was time barred. After Wells Fargo filed its appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court issued its opinion in U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Thunder Properties, Inc., 503 P.3d 299 (Nev. 2022) (“Thunder Properties”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; review statute-oflimitations dismissals de novo, Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 711 (9th Cir. 1993); vacate the district court’s order; and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with Thunder Properties. In Thunder Properties, the Nevada Supreme Court held that: (1) declaratory relief actions are not categorically exempt from statutes of limitations; (2) actions to determine the validity of a lien are subject to a four-year statute of limitations; and (3) the statute of limitations is not triggered until the titleholder affirmatively repudiates the lien, which does not necessarily happen at a foreclosure sale. 503 P.3d at 303–07. Relevant here, the court held that a “foreclosure sale, standing alone, is not sufficient to trigger” the statute-of-limitations period. Id. at 306. The district court, which decided SFR’s motion without the benefit of Thunder Properties, held that the statute of limitations period began after the foreclosure sale in 2012. Because this determination is inconsistent with the 2 21-16566 Nevada Supreme Court’s decision, we vacate the district court’s September 13, 2021 order, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with Thunder Properties. VACATED and REMANDED. 3 21-16566
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
