IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 338 No. 72286 FLYING COLT, Appellant, vs. FILED NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, SEP 1 2 2019 Res o ondent. c.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE BY DEPUTY CLERK

This is an appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment in an action to quiet title. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Elissa F. Cadish, Judge. Reviewing the summary judgment de novo, Wood u. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005), we affirm." In Saticoy Bay LLC Series 9641 Christine View v. Federal National Mortgage Assin, 134 Nev. 270, 272-74, 417 P.3d 363, 367-68 (2018), this court held that 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) (2012) (the Federal Foreclosure Bar) preempts NRS 116.3116 and prevents an HOA foreclosure sale from extinguishing a first deed of trust when the subject loan is owned by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (or when the FHFA is acting as conservator of a federal entity such as Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae). And in Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 133 Nev. 247, 250-51, 396 P.3d 754, 757-58 (2017), this court held that loan servicers such as respondent have standing to assert the Federal Foreclosure Bar on behalf of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. Consistent with these decisions, the district

'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted in this appeal.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA ov 3 v-/3 f (0) 1947A court correctly determined that respondent had standing to assert the Federal Foreclosure Bar on Freddie Mac's behalf and that the foreclosure sale did not extinguish the first deed of trust because Freddie Mac owned the secured loan at the time of the sa1e.2 Appellant contends that it is protected as a bona fide purchaser from the Federal Foreclosure Bar's effect. But we •recently held that an HOA foreclosure sale purchaser's putative status as a bona fide purchaser is inapposite when the Federal Foreclosure Bar applies because Nevada law does not require Freddie Mac to publicly record its ownership interest in the subject loan. Daisy Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 135 Nev., Adv. Op. 30, 445 P.3d 846, 849 (2019). Appellant also raises arguments challenging the sufficiency and admissibility of respondent's evidence demonstrating Freddie Mac's interest in the loan and respondent's status as the loan's servicer, but we recently addressed and rejected similar arguments with respect to similar evidence. Id. at 850-51.3 Accordingly, the district court

2Appellant contends that Freddie Mac could not have owned the loan because the deed of trust assignments from MERS to BAC Home Loans and from Bank of America/BAC Home Loans to respondent also purported to transfer the promissory note. However, this court recognized in Daisy Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. that Freddie Mac obtains its interest in a loan by virtue of the promissory note being negotiated to Freddie Mac. 135 Nev., Adv. Op. 30, 445 P.3d 846, 849 n.3 (2019). Because the promissory note had already been negotiated to Freddie Mac at the time the deed of trust assignments were executed, MERS and Bank of America/BAC Home Loans lacked authority to transfer the promissory note, and the language in the assignments purporting to do so had no effect. See 6A C.J.S. Assignments § 111 (2019) ("An assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor and ordinarily obtains only the rights possessed by the assignor at the time of the assignment, and no more.").

3To the extent appellant has raised arguments that were not explicitly addressed in Daisy Trust, none of those arguments convince us that the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A e41Vt:D,

IK correctly determined that appellant took title to the property subject to the first deed of trust.4 We therefore ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.5

cc: Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court Janet Trost, Settlement Judge Law Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd. Gerrard Cox & Larsen Akerman LLP/Las Vegas Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP Fennemore Craig P.C./Reno Eighth District Court Clerk

district court abused its discretion in admitting respondent's evidence. 135 Nev., Adv. Op. 30, 445 P.3d at 850 (recognizing that this court reviews a district court's decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion).

4We decline to consider appellant's arguments that were raised for the first time on appeal. Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981).

5The Honorable Michael Douglas, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A caggaga