Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

Nevada Supreme Court to hear arguments in Clark County cases

The Nevada Supreme Court will consider oral arguments next week in Carson City on cases emanating from Clark County involving a median, a golf course, blood-alcohol evidence and foreclosures.

Monday’s hearings will include:

Anderson v. Wells Cargo — After crashing into a median, motorcycle rider Andy Anderson sued Wells Cargo, Superior Traffic Services and others for negligent maintenance, design and workmanship defects and use of defective materials. The Clark County District Court issued a summary judgment in favor of the defendants, prompting an appeal from Anderson.

The Supreme Court will decide whether the lower court erred by denying Anderson’s request for additional time to complete discovery, granting summary judgment solely on the basis that the defendants were not in control of the allegedly defective median, and dismissing Anderson’s breach of contract claim.

Walters v. Clark County District Court and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. — Golf course developer Bill Walters is challenging District Court orders in a loan guarantee action involving Stallion Mountain Golf Course.

Walters entered a personally guaranteed loan through a guaranty with Community Bank of Nevada to ensure the sale of the golf course to a group of borrowers. When the borrowers defaulted, the bank foreclosed on the property and sought to recover the deficiency from Walters.

The Supreme Court will decide whether the District Court erred in concluding that, although the bank never formally applied for a deficiency judgment within a limited period provided under state law, the bank’s motion for summary judgment on its breach of guaranty claim constituted a timely application for a deficiency judgment.

State of Nevada v. Clark County District Court and Judge Stefany Miley — The state is challenging a District Court decision limiting the admission of blood-alcohol evidence in a DUI trial.

Bobby Armstrong was charged in Clark County with DUI causing death and/or substantial bodily harm. A blood sample was taken from Armstrong more than two hours after the accident, recording a blood-alcohol level of 0.18 percent.

In a pretrial motion, Armstrong sought to exclude the test result, arguing that his blood was drawn outside the two-hour window provided under state law. He argued that the process of retrograde extrapolation that the state would have to use to determine his

blood-alcohol level at the time he was driving was unreliable and therefore irrelevant and prejudicial.

The state argued that retrograde extrapolation was not mandatory because Armstrong’s blood-alcohol level was sufficiently high for a jury to reasonably determine that his blood-alcohol level was 0.08 percent or above while operating a vehicle.

The state also argued that retrograde extrapolation was an admissible method to determine Armstrong’s blood-alcohol level at the relevant time, and that the test result showed he had a sufficient quantity of alcohol in his system to be under the influence at the time he was driving.

After an evidentiary hearing, the court granted Armstrong’s motion in part. The court excluded retrograde extrapolation as a means of determining Armstrong’s blood-alcohol level at the time he was driving and also excluded the result of the test. The court, though, allowed the state to present more generalized evidence that the test showed the presence of alcohol.

The Supreme Court will decide whether the Cistrict Court abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction by precluding the state from introducing retrograde extrapolation evidence and the specific level of alcohol found in Armstrong’s blood sample.

Tuesday’s hearings will include:

Daane v. Clark County District Court and Judge Donald Mosley — William Daane refinanced the mortgage on his residence but two years later fell into default on the loan.

CR Title Services, the trustee of the deed of trust, filed a notice of default to begin the foreclosure process. Daane opted to participate in the Nevada Foreclosure Mediation Program.

The mediation went forward, but CitiMortgage, the beneficiary of the deed of trust, failed to produce necessary documents and failed to provide a representative with authority to modify a loan.

The mediator determined that CitiMortgage participated in the mediation in bad faith. Daane then filed a petition for judicial review. The District Court found that CitiMortgage acted in bad faith, and required it to reimburse Daane for his attorney fees and costs.

CitiMortgage was also denied a letter of certification, which is necessary for a foreclosure to go forward. After the hearing, CR Title filed a second notice of default, beginning the foreclosure process anew.

Daane again opted to participate in the mediation program. He now seeks a writ of prohibition to preclude the mediation program from further mediation proceedings with respect to his residence.

The Supreme Court will decide whether a writ for prohibition is an available remedy. The court also will determine whether state law or the mediation rules prevent a lender from reinitiating foreclosure by issuing a subsequent notice of default after the lender participated in the mediation in bad faith and was denied a letter of certification.

Holt v. Regional Trustees Services Corp. — Karl and Frances Holt are seeking to stop their lender from a second attempt to foreclose on their Clark County home.

The Holts purchased the residence in 2006 and in 2008 stopped making payments on the mortgage loan. After Regional Trustees issued a notice of default, the Holts opted to participate in the mediation program.

Regional Trustees and OneWest Bank failed to attend either of two scheduled mediations. Clark County District Court denied the companies a letter of certification needed for foreclosure to proceed, but stated that Regional Trustees could start the foreclosure process again.

The company did just that by issuing a new notice of default. The Holts filed a second lawsuit and moved to prevent the companies from reinstating foreclosure, but the court denied that motion.

The Supreme Court will determine whether the lender can restart the foreclosure process after a court order refusing to issue a letter of certification has been entered.

The Supreme Court also will decide whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying the Holts’ motion for injunctive relief and whether assigning mediation program cases only to a few judges results in inequity and violates legislative intent.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy