5322 research outputs found
Sort by
Moretto vs. Elk Point Country Club HOA, Inc. 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 24 (April 7, 2022)
Get PDFThis case addressed the extent of a common-interest-community homeowners association’s power to adopt rules restricting the use and design of individually owned properties. The Court concluded that public policy favors the adoption of section 6.7 and 6.9 of the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes. 2 These sections explain that homeowners’ associations do not have the implied power to impose use or design on individually owned properties. The governing documents of the association must expressly authorize the imposition of restrictions to do so. These restrictions are subject to a “reasonableness” requirement.3 The Court also acknowledged that neither party addressed whether the respondent’s exercise of its design-control power was reasonable-a central tenant of section 6.9. The Court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to appellant’s claims for declaratory relief and remanded the case back to the district court to consider whether respondent’s rules are reasonable under sections 6.7 and 6.9 of the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes
Cox v. MGM Grand Hotel, LCC., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (Apr. 14, 2022)
Get PDFThis case addressed when the district court can and should grant a remand for a new trial when a party claimed that evidentiary and instructional errors prejudiced their case. The particular issue in this case was the admittance of six surveillance videos that contradicted in-court presentation
Bennett v. State, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Apr. 28, 2022)
Get PDFYears after a jury sentenced Bennett to death, newly discovered evidence was presented. This case thoroughly explains whether a new evidentiary hearing must be granted. The statutory scheme providing for a petition to establish factual innocence is a relatively new addition to Nevada law.[1] Bennett v. State provided an opportunity to address the statutory provisions that guided the district court’s decision whether to order a hearing on this type of petition. The Court clarified two considerations relevant to the pleading requirements a petition must satisfy under NRS 34.960(2)(b): (1) a petition may rely on a witness’s recantation of trial testimony as newly discovered evidence provided the recantation is not the only new evidence and, (2) a petition may rely on newly discovered evidence that conflicts with a trial witness’s testimony provided the new evidence is substantive and exculpatory. The Court also explained that the district court must treat the newly discovered evidence as credible. The district court here denied the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing which is inconsistent with the applicable statues. The Court reversed and remanded for the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing
Saticoy Bay, LLC Ser. 34 Innisbrook v. Thornburg Motrg. Sec. TR. 2007-3, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (May 26, 2022)
Get PDFIn an opinion drafted by Justice Stiglich, the Court considered whether HOA’s have a statutory duty to record whether tender of a superpriority portion of their lien on a property was made when the Legislature amended NRS 116.31164. Saticoy Bay alleged that (1) if it had been permitted to pursue a claim, it could have produced evidence that Red Rock or Spanish Trail misrepresented that a tender had not been made and (2) that Spanish Trail had a statutory duty to proactively record BANA’s tender. The Court dismissed these arguments and found that the district court did not err by awarding the property’s previous owner the excess proceeds from the sale, thus awarding the HOA agent the attorney fees and costs it incurred in connection with the sale. The Court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the subsequent purchaser’s motion for reconsideration, affirming the district court’s judgment in full
Hung vs. Berhad, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (June 30, 2022)
Get PDFThe Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the appellants’ complaint on procedural grounds without granting leave to amend so that they could remedy any deficiencies in their pleadings thus far. The Court held that neither the appellants’ original complaint, first amended complaint, nor proposed second amended complaint, contained facts sufficient to show leave to amend would not be futile. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint
Artmor Invs., LLC v. Nye Cnty., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (July 7, 2022)
Get PDFNRS 361.610(4) requires claimants for excess proceeds from tax sales to file a claim within one year of the deed’s recording. One timely filed claim under the statute does not toll or terminate the one-year deadline for other claimants entitled to a portion of the excess proceeds. Further, counties are not required to distribute excess proceeds to all former owners when only a portion has been timely claimed
Torremoro v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (July 07, 2022)
Get PDFThe Supreme Court of Nevada addressed the standard for substituting an expert witness after the close of discovery and considered whether the district court abused its discretion in modifying the scheduling order, reopening discovery, and granting the motion to substitute. Torremoro requested a writ of mandamus requesting this Court to instruct the district court to reverse its order allowing substitution of an expert witness. The Court found that NRCP 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” test, in combination with any relevant local rules, provides the standard governing when a district court may modify a scheduling order. 2 The Court also concluded that the district court properly granted the motion to substitute the expert witness. The Court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus
In Re Change of Name: Salazar, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Oct. 20, 2022)
Get PDFIn an opinion drafted by Justice Hardesty, the Nevada Supreme Court considered whether a district court must provide reasons for denying an adult name change petition. In adopting a new standard, the Court found that a district court must provide substantial and principled reasons for denying an adult name-change petition. The Court held that the district court abused its discretion when it denied appellant Salazar’s name change petition without explanation