IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL No. 69478 ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR NOMURA HOME EQUITY LOAN, INC., ASSETBACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1, Appellant, DEC I II ?NI vs. PREMIER ONE HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is an appeal from a district court summary judgment, certified as final under NRCP 54(b), in a judicial foreclosure and quiet title action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michelle Leavitt, Judge. We review the summary judgment de nova, Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005), and affirm.

Appellant HSBC Bank challenges the relevant provisions of NRS Chapter 116, arguing that the statutory scheme violates its due process rights and that a foreclosure under that scheme constitutes a governmental taking. This court's decision in Saticoy Bay LLC Series 350 Durango 104 ix Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 5, 388 P.3d 970 (2017), forecloses those challenges.'

'We need not address HSBC's argument that NRS 116.3116 uses an "opt-in" notice scheme because it would not change the holding in Saticoy Bay that due process is not implicated, which was based on the absence of state action. See 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 5, 388 P.3d at 974. Nevertheless, we note that this court has observed that NRS 116.31168 (2013) incorporated NRS 107.090 (2013), which required that notices be sent to a deed of trust beneficiary. SFR Inv. Pool 1 v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 75, 334 P.3d 408, 418 (2014); id. at 422 (Gibbons, C.J., dissenting); see also Bourne SUPREME COURT OF Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154, 1163-64 (9th NEVADA Cir. 2016) (Wallace, J., dissenting). (0) 1947A 11-LB HSBC also asserts that there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment, namely that the foreclosure sale was commercially unreasonable based on the inadequacy of the purchase price.

This court has long held that inadequacy of price alone is not sufficient to set aside a foreclosure sale. Nationstar Mortg. v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 2227 Shadow Canyon, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 91 at 12-17, P.3d (2017) (discussing cases and reaffirming that inadequate price alone is insufficient to set aside a foreclosure sale). Instead, the party seeking to set aside a foreclosure sale must demonstrate some element of fraud, unfairness, or oppression. Id. at 10-11. Although a grossly inadequate price may require only slight evidence of fraud, unfairness, or oppression to set aside a foreclosure sale, id. at 15-16, HSBC did not offer any evidence other than the inadequacy of the purchase price. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that respondent was entitled to summary judgment. 2 SFR Inv.

Pool 1 v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 75, 334 P.3d 408, 419 (2014) (holding that proper foreclosure of the superpriority piece of a homeowners' association's lien extinguishes a first deed of trust); see also Wood, 121 Nev. at 731, 121 P.3d at 1031 ("The substantive law controls which factual disputes are material and will preclude summary judgment; other factual disputes are irrelevant.").

Although HSBC contends that respondent "did not offer evidence that the HOA sale complied with applicable notice and mailing requirements" and "failed to provide any evidence or assert that no other entity or individual paid off the super-priority lien prior to the BOA sale," these contentions do not change the propriety of the district court's

2 Because HSBC did not demonstrate sufficient grounds to justify setting aside the foreclosure sale, we need not address respondent's putative SUPREME COURT OF status as a bona fide purchaser.

NEVADA

(0) 1947A e 2 determination. With respect to the first contention, NRS 47.250(16) provides a disputable presumption `What the law has been obeyed" such that the burden shifted to HSBC to show that the HOA did not comply with the applicable notice and mailing requirements. 3 See Nationstar Mortg., Nev., Adv. Op. 91 at 11; see also Shadow Wood Homeowners Ass'n v. N.Y. Cmty. Bancorp, Inc., 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 5, 366 P.3d 1105, 1109-12 (2016) (explaining that conclusive effect of recitals included in trustee's deed of sale, as provided in NRS 116.31166, does not eliminate equitable relief but that party challenging the sale must set forth grounds for such relief).

With respect to the second contention, HSBC has not cited any authority, nor are we aware of any, that would support the proposition that it was respondent's burden to establish the absence of a tender. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). In light of the foregoing, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

htnet-cc , J.

Hardesty

J.

Parraguirre Stiglich cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Tucson Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas Snell & Wilmer LLP/Salt Lake City Hong & Hong Kim Gilbert Ebron Eighth District Court Clerk

3 We note that HSBC's briefs contain no discussion regarding the SUPREME COURT OF district court's denial of an NRCP 56(f) continuance.

NEVADA

10) 1947A 3 — 7 7-7-7: