that lien. The district court's decisions thus 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 to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order.

A Hardesty Ct.t AA; J.

J.

Douglas

CHERRY, 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

a disposition of these appeals.

kanotiv Cherry cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge David A. Rosenberg Howard Kim & Associates Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1047A