Case Explained: SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-14 Docket: 2:19-cv-01534-JCM-DJA The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Bank of America, N.A., holding that the bank was entitled to the excused-tender doctrine under Nevada law. The court applied a de novo standard of review and determined that the two requirements for excusing tender were satisfied without genuine dispute: first, the homeowners association (HOA) agent had a policy of rejecting any tender less than the full lien amount, and second, the bank knew of this policy. The record established that the HOA’s authorized agent, Assessment Management Services, maintained an across-the-board policy to reject conditional tenders covering only the superpriority portion of the lien, and Bank of America was aware of this policy through repeated rejections of tenders made on its behalf between 2012 and 2014. The court clarified that Bank of America, not its servicer Carrington Mortgage Services, bore the obligation to tender under Nevada law. Consequently, because a conditional tender would have been rejected, the bank was excused from making the full payment to preserve its deed of trust priority. The judgment is affirmed, leaving the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Bank of America in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.