U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Res. Grp., LLC, 444 P.3d 442

Background

U.S. Bank held a recorded first deed of trust on a Nevada home; homeowner defaulted on HOA dues and the HOA, via agent Alessi & Koenig, initiated a Chapter 116 lien foreclosure.
Alessi & Koenig mailed the notice of default to a different, unaffiliated entity (the "return to" address) instead of the lender address shown on the recorded deed of trust; U.S. Bank did not receive the notice of default and says it never received notice of sale.
The initial sale was scheduled 33 days after recording the notice of sale, was orally continued for ~60 days, and at the rescheduled sale Resources Group bought the property for $5,331 (roughly 10–15% of FMV). U.S. Bank and the homeowner did not attend.
After discovering the HOA sale, U.S. Bank sued to foreclose its deed of trust and added Resources Group; Resources Group counterclaimed to quiet title, asserting the HOA sale extinguished U.S. Bank's deed of trust.
The district court ruled for Resources Group, holding the HOA sale extinguished the deed of trust and that U.S. Bank was not entitled to statutory notice (or had received adequate notice). U.S. Bank appealed.
The Nevada Supreme Court found Alessi & Koenig failed to mail the statutorily required notice of default to the lender address on the recorded deed of trust and vacated/ remanded for the district court to determine whether the notice defect caused prejudice warranting relief (voiding or setting aside the sale).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (U.S. Bank)	Defendant's Argument (Resources Group / Alessi & Koenig)	Held
Whether a first deed of trust holder is entitled to notice of default/sale absent a request	Statute requires mailing notice to recorded first deed of trust holder even without a request; U.S. Bank relied on the deed's lender address	Sale purchaser argued U.S. Bank had not requested notices and thus was not entitled	Court: SFR precedent requires notice regardless of request; U.S. Bank was entitled to notice and district court erred in saying otherwise
Whether the agent complied with statutory notice rules by mailing to the "return to" address instead of the lender address on the recorded deed	Failure to mail to the lender address violated NRS 116.31168 and NRS 107.090; such violation can void the sale if prejudicial	Agent/ purchaser argued notice was sufficient (or sale was orally continued giving adequate time) and purchaser was a bona fide purchaser	Court: Agent erred — notice had to be sent to address on recorded deed; remanded for findings on actual/alternative notice and prejudice; sale may be void if U.S. Bank would have cured the superpriority lien but-for the defect
Whether the sale is void or voidable (and whether purchaser's BFP status protects title)	The notice defect (and lack of actual notice) rendered sale void (or at least voidable given low price and irregularities)	Purchaser relied on bona fide purchaser status to insulate title, arguing no actual or inquiry notice	Court: Vacated BFP finding because trial court's erroneous notice ruling infected that analysis; BFP status is a factual inquiry on remand; a void sale would defeat even a BFP
Whether the low sale price and irregularities justify equitable relief (set aside sale)	Low bid (~10–15% FMV), notice defects, and other irregularities (possible attorney relationships) support voidable-sale relief under Shadow Canyon/Golden	Purchaser argued absence of actual notice and asserted BFP status; contested inadequacy/inquiry notice	Court: Price disparity plus notice failure presents a classic equitable claim; district court must reassess on remand including inquiry notice, purchaser sophistication, and prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Title Ins. & Tr. Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 97 Nev. 523, 634 P.2d 1216 (Nev. 1981) (failure to give statutorily required notice can render a foreclosure sale void)
SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2018) (NRS 116/107 require HOA notice to recorded first deed of trust holders even without a request)
West Sunset 2050 Tr. v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 420 P.3d 1032 (Nev. 2018) (statutory notice defects require a showing of prejudice to invalidate an HOA sale)
Schleining v. Cap One, Inc., 326 P.3d 4 (Nev. 2014) (substantial compliance and lack of prejudice can defeat notice-based challenges)
Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 2227 Shadow Canyon, 405 P.3d 641 (Nev. 2017) (sale may be set aside when affected by fraud, unfairness, or oppression; consider price disparity plus irregularities)
Shadow Wood Homeowners Ass'n v. N.Y. Cmty. Bancorp, Inc., 366 P.3d 1105 (Nev. 2016) (district court must weigh bona fide purchaser status when balancing equities in HOA-sale quiet-title actions)
Golden v. Tomiyasu, 387 P.2d 989 (Nev. 1963) (large inadequacy of price plus slight irregularity can justify setting aside a sale)
Bank of Am., N.A. v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 427 P.3d 113 (Nev. 2018) (a void foreclosure sale defeats title even of a bona fide purchaser)
Davis v. Beling, 278 P.3d 501 (Nev. 2012) (clear contract language — including notice addresses — must be enforced as written)