Sfr Investments Pool 1 v. Bac Home Loans

the controlling law and did not reach the other issues colorably asserted. Accordingly, we

REVERSE the order granting summary judgment AND REMAND this matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order.

CHERRY, J., concurring:

For the reasons stated in the SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, NA., 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.

Cita. J. Cherry cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge

Howard Kim & Associates Akerman LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A Wei.