Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Smith Larsen & WIxom
-
Order | Filed: May 06, 2024 | Entered: May 06, 2024 Shirehampton Drive Trust v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. et al
Taxes | Nevada
Order
AMENDED ORDER regarding 82 Motion for Summary Judgement signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 5/6/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)
-
Filed: May 06, 2024 | Entered: May 06, 2024 Shirehampton Drive Trust v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. et al
Taxes | Nevada
Minute Order Order on Motion to Amend/Correct
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 5/6/2024 GRANTING 96 Motion to Amend. Before the Court is Shirehampton Drive Trust's 96 Motion to Amend the 93 Order on the 82 Motion for Summary Judgement. In the motion, Shirehampton moves the Court to alter or amend the 93 Order to clarify that the foreclosure sale at issue is only void as to JPMorgan Chase Bank and the Internal Revenues Service ("IRS"). The Court takes notice that the 97 Response of the United States substantively agrees with Shirehampton's motion and the 98 Response of JPMorgan Chase Bank expresses non-opposition.
Under Federal Rule of Civil procedure 59(e), a court may grant a motion for reconsideration only where: (1) it is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) it has committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 807 (9th Cir. 2004); Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). The Court agrees with the points and authorities raised in the 96 Motion and the 97 Response. The Court finds the plain meaning of the 93 Order makes a clear legal error in finding the foreclosure sale void rather than voidable. See Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 2227 Shadow Canyon, 405 P.3d 641 (Nev. 2017). The Court further finds that correcting this error would prevent manifest injustice, in that a void sale would wrongly divest Shirehampton of the title to the property. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 96 Motion to Amend is GRANTED. A corrected version of the order will follow.
(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)
-
Misc | Filed: April 04, 2024 | Entered: April 04, 2024 Voggenthaler, et al., v. Maryland Square, LLC, et al.,
Other Statutory Actions | Nevada
Status Report
First STATUS REPORT Quarter 2024 by Defendant Maryland Square Shopping Center, LLC. (Dwiggins, Dana)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login