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

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.

ct._5r J.

Parraguirre

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge Law Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd. Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA ((3) 1947A 4e4A,