ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
The district court granted judgment for respondent, concluding that the first deed of trust survived the HOAs 2013 foreclosure sale. As the basis for its conclusion, the district court found that respondents agent (Miles Bauer) tendered the superpriority portion of the HOAs lien such that the deed of trust was not extinguished by the foreclosure sale. In so doing, the district court determined that respondent was not time-barred from asserting its tender “claim” because respondent referenced the tender in its January 20, 2015, interrogatory responses and filed an amended complaint asserting a quiet title claim on January 21, 2015, such that appellant was sufficiently apprised of the tender “claim” within any applicable limitations period.
After briefing in this appeal was completed, we decided U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Thunder Properties, Inc., 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 3, 503 P.3d 299 (2022), wherein we held that NRS 11.220’s four-year limitations period governs a deed of trust beneficiarys quiet title claim in situations such as in this case. Thus, under Thunder Properties, respondents 2015 quiet title claim was timely under any conceivable accrual date of NRS 11.220’s limitations period. See id. at 306 (“[T]he statute of limitations should not run against a lienholder until it has something closely analogous to ‘notice of disturbed possession,’ such as repudiation of the lien.” (quoting Berberich v. Bank of Am., N.A., 136 Nev. 93, 97, 460 P.3d 440, 443 (2020))). Consequently, the district court correctly determined that respondents quiet title claim was timely.
2
See Holcomb Condos. Homeowners’ Assn v. Stewart Venture, LLC, 129 Nev. 181, 186-87, 300 P.3d 124, 128 (2013) (“[T]he application of the statute of limitations is a question of law that this court reviews de novo.”); Winn v. Sunrise Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 128 Nev. 246, 253, 277 P.3d 458, 463 (2012) (“The appropriate accrual date for the statute of limitations is a question of law only if the facts are uncontroverted.” (internal alteration and quotation marks omitted)). In light of the foregoing, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
3
FOOTNOTES
2
. Insofar as appellant suggests that respondent needed to specifically plead “tender” as a “claim” in its complaint or reference “tender” therein, we are not persuaded, at least under the facts of this case.
3
. The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.