Daisy Trust v. fnma/fannie Mae, 21-15595

Property in North Las Vegas subject to a deed of trust assigned to Fannie Mae; an HOA also had enforcement rights.
Borrowers defaulted beginning in 2009; Fannie Mae issued a Notice of Default in 2010, but any alleged acceleration notice was never recorded; Fannie Mae recorded a Notice of Rescission on June 6, 2011.
The HOA foreclosed in 2012 and Daisy Trust purchased the property at the sale.
Daisy Trust litigated a quiet title action against Fannie Mae in Nevada state court (2014–2019); the trial court granted summary judgment to Fannie Mae and Daisy Trust voluntarily dismissed its appeal in 2019.
Daisy Trust filed a new suit in 2020 asserting NRS 106.240’s ten-year presumption extinguished the deed of trust in 2020, alleging (without a recorded instrument) that Fannie Mae accelerated the debt in 2009–2010.
The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding an unrecorded notice cannot trigger NRS 106.240 and that Fannie Mae’s recorded rescission reset the statutory clock.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an unrecorded notice of acceleration can trigger NRS 106.240’s 10-year extinguishment presumption	Daisy Trust: an acceleration occurred (allegedly via a notice issued in 2009–2010), making the debt wholly due and subject to §106.240	Fannie Mae: acceleration requires the recorded notice mandated by NRS 107.080; an unrecorded notice is legally ineffective	Court: unrecorded notice cannot trigger §106.240; dismissal affirmed
Whether a recorded rescission decelerates the debt and resets the §106.240 clock	Daisy Trust: argued the deed was extinguished despite rescission (implicitly contesting its effect)	Fannie Mae: recorded rescission decelerated the debt and reinstated cure periods, resetting the statutory clock	Court: recorded rescission decelerated the debt and reset the clock, defeating extinguishment claim

Pro-Max Corp. v. Feenstra, 16 P.3d 1074 (Nev. 2001) (interpreting NRS 106.240’s ten-year presumption)
Holt v. Regional Tr. Servs. Corp., 266 P.3d 602 (Nev. 2011) (rescission decelerates debt and resets cure periods)
Bafford v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 994 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2021) (standard of review on motion to dismiss)
Plaskett v. Wormuth, 18 F.4th 1072 (9th Cir. 2021) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pleading standard for plausibility)
Curtis v. Irwin Indus., Inc., 913 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2019) (accept allegations as true on motion to dismiss)