U.S. Supreme Court

Case Status


Docket Number


Cert. Denied


Questions Presented

Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that Nevada’s statute authorizing nonjudicial foreclosure of association liens, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 116.3116 et seq., was facially unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause for not requiring direct notice to junior lienholders, when the only state action involved was the enactment of the statute regulating the private sale.

Case Updates

Cert. petition denied

June 26, 2017

U.S. Chamber urges Supreme Court to review constitutionality of Nevada’s super-priority statute

May 16, 2017

The U.S. Chamber filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant review and affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision holding that Nevada’s statute violates mortgage lenders’ due process right to notice before deprivation of their property.

In nearly half of the states, when a homeowner living in a common-interest community falls behind on her association dues, the homeowners association (“HOA”) acquires a special statutory lien on her property. Such liens had long been understood to provide only a payment preference, allowing HOAs to recover a capped amount of unpaid fees through foreclosure before other lienholders are paid, but without otherwise impairing other lienholders’ rights. But a number of jurisdictions, including Nevada here, have recently interpreted their statutes to provide super-priority liens. Such liens not only allow HOAs to collect before other lienholders but also extinguish all other liens—including first mortgage liens. And in Nevada, this deprivation of mortgagees’ property could take place without direct notice to the mortgage lienholders.

The Chamber’s brief urges the Supreme Court to grant review to resolve a conflict between the Ninth Circuit and Nevada Supreme Court as to whether Nevada’s super-priority regime constitutes a form of state action subject to the notice requirements of the Due Process Clause. The brief argues that super-priority statutes contravene bedrock principles of property law and threaten to destabilize the real-estate finance system, resulting in less credit for homebuyers.

This brief was filed jointly with the Mortgage Bankers Association and American Bankers Association.

Joseph R. Palmore, Donald C. Lampe, and Bryan J. Leitch of Morrison & Foerster LLP served as counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.

Case Documents