Espiritu v. Capital One, N.A.
2:15-cv-01933
D. Nev.May 17, 2017Background
- Espiritu defaulted on her 2003 mortgage in December 2013 and stopped making payments thereafter.
- Defendants recorded a notice of foreclosure in May 2015; the property was sold at public auction in July 2015 to Pintar Investment Company LP.
- Espiritu continued to reside in the home after the sale and seeks to void the foreclosure sale under Nevada foreclosure statute NRS 107.080.
- She alleges defendants committed procedural defects (e.g., mailing/notice errors, omission of a toll-free number in an affidavit, and incomplete statements about business-records foundations).
- Defendants produced documentary evidence showing they mailed/posted required notices and complied with foreclosure procedures; Espiritu primarily relies on her testimony that she did not receive some notices.
- The court previously dismissed most claims but allowed a statutory claim under NRS 107.080 to proceed; defendants moved for summary judgment on that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Espiritu can obtain relief under NRS 107.080(8) to void a completed foreclosure sale | Espiritu contends §107.080(8) permits a titleholder at time of sale to challenge and unwind the sale due to noncompliance | §107.080(8) authorizes only a current record titleholder to seek an injunction to stop a future sale for noncompliance; it does not void completed sales | Court held §107.080(8) does not apply—it is limited to current record holders seeking injunctive relief to prevent an upcoming sale, so Espiritu lacks standing under §8 |
| Whether Espiritu can void the sale under NRS 107.080(5) for lack of substantial compliance | Espiritu argues procedural violations justify voiding the completed sale under §5 | Defendants argue any defects were technical, they substantially complied with §§107.086/107.087, sent required notices, and Espiritu suffered no prejudice (she was in default and had notice) | Court held Espiritu failed to show lack of substantial compliance or resulting prejudice; minor errors were not material, so no relief under §5 |
| Whether proof of mailing suffices where plaintiff says she did not receive notices | Espiritu asserts she did not receive certain notices and was prejudiced | Defendants provided proof of sending; Nevada law requires proof of mailing, not actual receipt | Court held proof of sending is sufficient; disappearance of actual receipt testimony does not create triable issue |
| Whether factual disputes preclude summary judgment | Espiritu relies on her testimony to create disputed facts about notice and compliance | Defendants submitted documentary evidence showing compliance; plaintiff must produce specific admissible evidence to create a triable issue | Court concluded no genuine dispute of material fact and granted summary judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d 772 (9th Cir.) (statutory and wrongful-foreclosure remedies are distinct)
- Tae‑Si Kim v. Kearney, [citation="546 F. App'x 677"] (9th Cir.) (foreclosure sale terminates prior owner’s legal and equitable interests)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and allocation of burdens)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue and materiality standards for summary judgment)