Community Bank of Nevada v. Mardian-Williams

Full title: COMMUNITY BANK OF NEVADA, Plaintiffs, v. LORI MARDIAN-WILLIAMS, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Oct 5, 2011

2:09-cv-2238-LRH-LRL (D. Nev. Oct. 5, 2011)

Opinion

2:09-cv-2238-LRH-LRL.

October 5, 2011

ORDER

LARRY HICKS, District Judge

Before the court is plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's ("FDIC") motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Doc. #28.¹

1 Refers to the court's docket number.

Also before the court is defendants Lori Mardian-Williams ("Mardian-Williams"); Austin P. Williams ("Williams"); and Red Lake Investments, LLC's ("Red Lake") (collectively "defendants") motion for summary judgment on the issue of damages. Doc. #29.

I. Facts and Background

This action involves a breach of a promissory note, a business loan agreement, and personal guarantees by individual defendants involving a loan between Valley Bank ("Valley") and defendant Red Lake in the amount of $2,500,000 for real property located in Mojave County, Arizona. After the initial loan transaction, Valley was acquired by Community Bank of Nevada ("CBN"). Red Lake then entered into a business loan agreement with CBN which subsumed the original loan transaction. Defendants Mardian-Williams; Williams; and Archer Investments, LLC ("Archer") executed personal and commercial guarantees on the loan.

In April 2008, Red Lake defaulted on the agreement by failing to make required principal and interest payments. In response, CBN foreclosed on the property and sold it at a trustee's sale for $1,150,000. Subsequently, on April 6, 2009, CBN filed the underlying action against defendants seeking a deficiency judgment in the amount of $1,614,318.54, plus interest.

After the filing of the complaint, the FDIC became the receiver for CBN. Thereafter, the FDIC filed the present motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Doc. #28. In response, defendants filed the present motion for summary judgment on the issue of damages. Doc. #29.

II. FDIC's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Liability (Doc. #28)

III. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Damages (Doc. #29)

See See

However, the court finds that such a determination cannot be made without a fair market valuation hearing. Pursuant to NRS 40.455, a judgment creditor may move for a hearing under NRS 40.457 to have the court determine the fair market value of the underlying property. Here, the FDIC has requested such a hearing. See Doc. #28. Therefore, the court finds that summary judgment is not appropriate and shall deny defendants' motion.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability (Doc. #28) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment on the issue of damages (Doc. #29) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty (30) days from entry of this order to file opening briefs of not more than fifteen (15) pages concerning the fair market value of the property at issue. The parties shall then have ten (10) days after the filing of opening briefs to file response briefs of not more than ten (10) pages. Thereafter, the court shall set a fair market valuation hearing pursuant to NRS 40.457.

IT IS SO ORDERED.