association may nonjudicially foreclose on that lien. The district court's decision thus was 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 Poen .

WI (1a :ill__ 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.

(besot Parraguirre

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Law Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd. Smith Larsen & Wixom McCarthy & Holthus, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A