M&T Bank v. Sfr Investments Pool 1, LLC, 963 F.3d 854

In 2008 the FHFA placed Freddie Mac into conservatorship; FHFA as conservator has all rights in Freddie Mac and HERA created the Federal Foreclosure Bar preventing involuntary liens or foreclosures on conservatorship property.
Nevada law grants HOAs a "superpriority" lien that can extinguish a prior deed of trust, but the Federal Foreclosure Bar preempts that scheme for FHFA-controlled property.
A Las Vegas property secured by a Freddie Mac-held first deed of trust was sold at a nonjudicial HOA foreclosure in July 2012 to SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC for unpaid assessments.
FHFA never consented to that foreclosure; in July 2017 Freddie Mac and M&T Bank (servicer/record beneficiary) sued to quiet title, asserting the deed of trust survived under the Federal Foreclosure Bar.
SFR moved to dismiss as time-barred under the 3-year tort limitations in 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(12)(A)(ii); plaintiffs argued the 6-year contract limitations in § 4617(b)(12)(A)(i) (or state law) applied.
The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the claim is a 'contract' claim under HERA and therefore subject to the longer limitations period (at least six years), so the 2017 suit was timely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the quiet-title claim falls under HERA's 'contract' or 'tort' limitations category	The quiet-title action enforces a mortgage lien (an interest created by contract), so it is a contract claim subject to the longer limitations period	The claim is time-barred as a tort claim and thus governed by the 3-year tort limitations	The claim is a contract claim under § 4617(b)(12)(A)(i); apply the longer limitations period
Whether HERA's limitations statute applies to Freddie Mac and its servicer (not only FHFA)	Freddie Mac (under conservatorship) and its assignee/servicer stand in FHFA’s shoes, so HERA’s limitations apply	HERA’s statute addresses actions brought by FHFA only and doesn’t govern private plaintiffs	HERA’s limitations period applies to Freddie Mac and M&T as they stand in the FHFA’s position; plaintiffs receive the same limitations period as the conservator

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arlington W. Twilight Homeowners Ass'n, 920 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2019) (discusses Nevada HOA superpriority lien in light of federal law)
Berezovsky v. Moniz, 869 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2017) (Federal Foreclosure Bar preempts Nevada HOA superpriority lien scheme)
Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 893 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2018) (prior Ninth Circuit proceedings on related issues)
FDIC v. Bledsoe, 989 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1993) (assignee stands in assignor’s shoes for limitations periods)
United States v. Thornburg, 82 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 1996) (adopts Bledsoe reasoning on standing in assignor’s shoes)
Stanford Ranch, Inc. v. Md. Cas. Co., 89 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 1996) (claim dependent on an underlying contract sounds in contract)
Smith v. FDIC, 61 F.3d 1552 (11th Cir. 1995) (mortgage lien is a contractual interest; actions to enforce it are contract actions)
Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. UBS Ams. Inc., 712 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2013) (HERA’s limitations provision is exclusive for conservator’s actions)
Nat’l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. RBS Sec., Inc., 833 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) (statutory scheme prescribes the sole limitations period for conservator claims)
Wise v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 600 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2010) (when multiple statutes potentially apply, the longer limitations period governs)