Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
GOLDEN CREEK HOLDINGS, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, Appellant, v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Respondent.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is an appeal from a district court judgment in a quiet title action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mark R. Denton, Judge.
Appellant has moved to voluntarily dismiss this appeal under NRAP 42(b), with the parties to bear their own fees and costs, pointing to two opinions released after its opening brief was filed that essentially resolve its argument on appeal that the prior homeowner's default triggered the 10-year clock under NRS 106.240: LV Debt Collect, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 139 Nev., Adv. Op. 25, 534 P.3d 693 (2023) (recording notice of default does not trigger NRS 106.240’s 10-year period), and Posner v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 140 Nev., Adv. Op. 22, 545 P.3d 1150 (2024) (terms of mortgage/deed of trust and any recorded extension alone dictate when the NRS 106.240 period is triggered). Respondent opposes the motion, asserting that the appeal's disposition could affect numerous similar cases currently pending in the various state and federal courts, the parties and amicus curiae have spent thousands of dollars on the appeal, and dismissing according to appellant's terms could preclude it from obtaining fees and costs related to the appeal under NRCP 68 below. Respondent also seeks NRA.P 38 sanctions, claiming appellant filed a frivolous appeal. Appellant argues that no controversy remains and denies that the appeal was frivolous, pointing out that the law surrounding its argument was not settled until this court issued the two cases mentioned above.
Having considered the parties’ arguments, we grant the motion and hereby dismiss the appeal. As it does not appear that the appeal was frivolous, we decline to award NRAP 38 sanctions. However, given that respondent may attempt to obtain fees and costs in the district court. In re Est. & Living Tr. of Miller, 125 Nev. 550, 555, 216 P.3d 239, 243 (2009), we decline to condition the dismissal on each party paying their own fees and costs. Any motions seeking such fees and costs should be filed in the district court.
It is so ORDERED.
Stiglich, J.
Pickering, J.
Parraguirre, J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 85380
Decided: July 22, 2024
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)