Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This dispute arose out of a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding that Respondent bank initiated against a home owned by Appellants. Respondent purchased the home at the trustee's sale. When Appellants did not vacate, Respondent filed an unlawful detainer action. Appellants responded by filing a complaint seeking to quiet title to the property, alleging that Respondent did not own the promissory note or deed of trust and had foreclosed without proper notice under Nev. Rev. Sat. 107.080, invalidating the trustee's sale. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss Appellants' complaint, which the federal district court granted. Appellants appealed, arguing that the district court should not have ruled on the motion dismiss because the prior-exclusive-jurisdiction doctrine required the federal court to abstain in favor of the earlier-filed unlawful detainer action. The federal court agreed that if both the quiet title action and the unlawful detainer action were characterized as in rem or quasi in rem, then the court was required to vacate the district court's dismissal of the quiet title action. The Nevada Supreme Court accepted certification to answer the characterization of the parties' actions and held that quiet title and unlawful detainer proceedings are in rem or quasi in rem in nature. View "Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co." on Justia Law

Appellant filed an employment action against her former employer. Appellant initially authorized her attorney to settle with Respondent, but Appellant refused to sign the settlement agreement. Respondent filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The district court granted the motion and entered an order setting forth the terms of the parties' settlement. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding the order was not a final judgment because it did not dismiss or formally resolve Appellant's complaint. Respondent subsequently issued a check to Appellant for the settlement amount, which Appellant refused to accept. The district court then granted Respondent's motion to deposit the settlement proceeds with the district court. The order, however, failed to enter judgment in favor of either party or otherwise resolve the case. The district court then entered an order statistically closing the case on the basis that there had been a stipulated judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the district court's order was not substantively appealable because no statute or court rule authorizes an appeal from an order statistically closing a case, and the order did not constitute a final, appealable judgment, as none was entered. View "Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC" on Justia Law

A police department initiated an internal investigation of Appellant, a veteran of the department, regarding allegations of insurance fraud. During an internal investigation meeting, Appellant was not provided a police protective association (PPA) representative because she had retained a private attorney. Appellant subsequently received a formal written reprimand. Appellant later filed a complaint with the Employee Management Relations Board (EMRB) against the PPA and the department. The EMRB denied Plaintiff's claims, and the district court denied Appellant's petition for judicial review. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the EMRB correctly concluded that Nev. Rev. Stat. 289.080 did not impose a duty of fair representation on the PPA, and thus, Appellant was not entitled to have PPA representation present during the internal investigation meeting; and (2) the EMRB properly upheld the department's written reprimand of Appellant. View "Bisch v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't" on Justia Law

Wife filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief. Husband did not join in the bankruptcy petition or file a separate petition for relief. Under bankruptcy law, the bankruptcy estate includes all of the marital community property. Wife claimed exemptions for two motor vehicles and property worth over $1,400, all of which was community property. The Trustee filed an objection on the grounds that a debtor spouse may exempt only a single vehicle and property worth no more than $1,000 under Nev. Rev. Stat. 21.090(1), and a non-debtor spouse has no right to claim any exemptions in a debtor spouse's bankruptcy. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court overruled the Trustee's objection, determining that Nevada law allows a debtor to claim motor vehicle and wildcard exemptions on behalf of a non-debtor spouse. The Trustee appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, which certified a question to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that, based on section 21.090(1)(f) and (z)'s plain language, Nevada law does not allow debtors to claim motor vehicle and wildcard exemptions on behalf of their non-debtor spouses, and therefore, a judgment debtor in Nevada is limited to one motor vehicle exemption an other personal property exemptions not to exceed $1,000. View " In re Fox" on Justia Law

The City of Sparks traditionally made most personnel and budget decisions for the Sparks Municipal Court. The City and Municipal Court later entered into a dispute over the City's exercise of this authority. The district court subsequently enjoined the City from making such decisions in the future based on the Municipal Court's broad authority to manage its own affairs. The City appealed. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the portion of the district court's order enjoining the City from interfering with the Municipal Court's ability to make personnel decisions, holding that the separation of powers doctrine and the Municipal Court's inherent authority barred the City from interfering with the Municipal Court's control over such decisions; and (2) reversed the district court's order as to the parties' budgetary dispute, holding (i) the Municipal Court's inherent power over its budget must be weighed against the City's authority over government finances, but (ii) the parties failed to develop the record sufficiently for the Court to determine whether the Municipal Court properly invoked its inherent powers on this point. Remanded. View " City of Sparks v. Sparks Mun. Court" on Justia Law

This dispute arose out of a written option contract under which Respondent had the right to purchase real property from Appellants for $8 million. The property was subject to a deed of trust securing approximately $1.3 million in debt. At issue was whether the Respondent or Appellants were required to pay off the $1.3 million debt. The district court granted summary judgment for Respondent, concluding that the option contract required Appellants to deliver clear title, meaning Appellants were required to remove the $1.3 encumbrance for a net $6.7 option price. Appellants appealed, arguing that the option contract contemplated that Respondent take title subject to preexisting encumbrances, so that Appellants received the full $8 million option price. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly interpreted the option contract and that the contract placed responsibility for the $1.3 million debt on Appellants' side of the ledger. View " Galardi v. Naples Polaris, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2008, Regents Bank issued two loans to Appellant. After Appellant failed to repay either loan, Regents filed a complaint in district court for breach of contract and judicial foreclosure. The district court stayed the proceedings and compelled arbitration as provided in the loan documents. The arbitrator ultimately ruled in Regents' favor. The district court confirmed the arbitration award and later entered an amended judgment and order of sale. Appellant appealed, arguing (1) Regents employed undue means in procuring the award, and (2) the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in refusing to void one of the loans. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order confirming the arbitration award, holding (1) Appellant failed to satisfy his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the award was procured through intentionally misleading conduct; and (2) the arbitrator's refusal to void one of the loans was not a manifest disregard of the law. View "Sylver v. Regents Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Chrysler Group, LLC, a motor vehicle manufacturer, reimbursed two buyers of defective vehicles the full purchase price, including sales tax, pursuant to Nevada's lemon law. Thereafter, Chrysler sought refunds of the sales taxes that the vehicles' retailers had collected and remitted when they originally sold the vehicles to the buyers. The Department of Taxation had previously refunded lemon law sales tax reimbursements to manufacturers but denied Chrysler's refund requests because the state attorney general's office advised the Department that there was no statutory authority for such refunds. The district court concluded that Chrysler was entitled to a refund. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Nevada law did not allow for such a refund and the Department was not required to adhere to its prior erroneous interpretation of the law. View "State, Dep't of Taxation v. Chrysler Group LLC" on Justia Law

Homeowner attended a first Foreclosure Mediation Program (FMP) mediation with Citimortgage, after which Defendant was denied a loan modification. The district court subsequently ordered a second mediation. PennyMac Corp. later obtained beneficial interest in the deed of trust and promissory note and attended the second mediation. The mediator determined that PennyMac failed to bring the promissory note, deed of trust, and other documents to the mediation and that PennyMac's representative lacked authority to negotiate. Homeowner filed a petition for judicial review, requesting sanctions, attorney fees, and a judicially imposed loan modification. The district court imposed sanctions against PennyMac but declined to impose a loan modification or monetary sanctions beyond the amount of attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Homeowner had standing to challenge the district court's order on appeal; and (2) the district court acted within its discretion in denying an FMP certificate and in determining sanctions. View " Jacinto v. PennyMac Corp." on Justia Law

Respondent, a firefighter, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after he was diagnosed with cancer within four years from the commencement of his employment with the City. Respondent asserted that his cancer was a compensable occupational disease that resulted from his work as a firefighter. The City denied the claim for benefits. A hearing officer with the Department of Administration Hearings Division affirmed the denial of the claim because Defendant had not been employed as a firefighter for five years pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 617.453. An appeals officer reversed, holding that Defendant satisfied Nev. Rev. Stat. 617.440's requirements for proving a compensable occupational disease. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in upholding the appeals officer's determination that a firefighter such as Evans, who fails to qualify for section 617.453's rebuttable presumption can still seek workers' compensation benefits pursuant to section 617.440 by proving that his cancer is an occupational disease that arose out of his employment; and (2) the appeals officer correctly found Respondent's cancer was a compensable occupational disease. View "City of Las Vegas v. Evans" on Justia Law