were based on an erroneous interpretation of the controlling law and did not reach the other issues colorably asserted.Accordingly, we VACATE the order denying preliminary injunctive relief, REVERSE the order granting the motion to dismiss, AND REMAND this matter for proceedings consistent with this order.

'PA Pickering

, J.

Saitta

PARRAGUIRRE, J., concurring: For the reasons stated in the SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. , 334 P.3d 408 (2014), dissent, I disagree that respondent lost its lien priority by virtue of the homeowners association's nonjudicial foreclosure sale. I recognize, however, that SFR Investments is now the controlling law and, thusly, concur in the disposition of this appeal.

).0.„.31,recant=9,J .

Parraguirre

cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge Howard Kim & Associates Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A