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.'

°14.04 J.

Hardesty

Douglas

CHERRY, J., concurring: For the reasons stated in the SFR Investments Pool I, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. , 334 P.3d 408 (2014), dissent, I disagree that respondent Wells Fargo 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 these appeals.

1 The injunction imposed by our June 17, 2013, order is vacated.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I947A cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge Law Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd. McCarthy & Holthus, LLP/Las Vegas Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1907A .sfjff4r)