eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Nevada Supreme Court
 2016-03

Benton v. Sheldon ( 2016 )


Menu:
 
  •                              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
DONALD E. BENTON, AN                                   No. 65296
INDIVIDUAL,
Appellant,
vs.                                                         FILED
JOHN SHELDON, AN INDIVIDUAL,
Resnondent.                                                  MAR 1 8 2016
K UNDEMAN
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
CLERK
S•V
DEPUTY CLERK
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court judgment on a jury
verdict in a contract and tort action and from post-judgment orders
awarding attorney fees and denying a new trial. Eighth Judicial District
Court, Clark County; Stefany Miley, Judge.
Having considered the parties ' arguments and the record, we
conclude that substantial evidence supported the jury ' s verdict with
respect to appellant ' s claims for monies due and owing, breach of
agreement, fraud and deceit, and exploitation of an elder. See Allstate Ins.
Co. v. Miller,
    125 Nev. 300
    , 308,
    212 P.3d 318
    , 324 (2009). In particular,
but among other reasons, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude from
the evidence presented that appellant intended for the payments totaling
$12,000 to be gifts to respondent ' s daughter.   See Mason-McDuffie Real
Estate, Inc. v. Villa Fiore Dev., LLC, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 83,
    335 P.3d 211
    ,
214 (2014) (indicating that substantial evidence is          "that which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion "
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A 4141W4119
it, - 08(a83
(internal quotation omitted)) 1 ; Edmonds v. Perry,
    62 Nev. 41
    , 61,
    140 P.2d 566
    , 576 (1943) (observing that donative intent may be established "from
the facts and circumstance surrounding the transaction").
Appellant next contends that a new trial is warranted because
(1) he was not given an opportunity to review the verdict form, (2) the
verdict form was materially inadequate, and (3) the verdict form contained
the watermark of respondent's counsel. Appellant's first basis is belied by
the record, and we are not persuaded by appellant's explanations as to
how the second and third bases affected his substantial rights. NRCP
59(a) (recognizing that a new trial may be warranted only when a
purported impropriety during the first trial has "materially affect[ed] the
substantial rights of [the] aggrieved party"). Accordingly, we conclude
that the district court was within its discretion in denying appellant's
motion for a new trial. Edwards Indus., Inc. v. DTE/BTE, Inc.,
    112 Nev. 1025
    , 1036,
    923 P.2d 569
    , 576 (1996).
Appellant lastly contends that the district court's February 4,
2014, order awarding attorney fees must be vacated because that order
does not contain findings of fact. Having considered the parties' motion
practice and the district court's oral findings at the January 7, 2014,
hearing, we conclude that the district court was within its discretion in
awarding attorney fees under NRS 17.115 and NRCP 68. See Aspen Fin.
'This conclusion would hold true even under the heightened
standard of proof contained in the jury instructions. See Gilman v. Nev.
State Bd. of Veterinary Med. Exam'rs,
    120 Nev. 263
    , 274-75,
    89 P.3d 1000
    ,
1008 (2004) (describing the standard of review that this court employs
when an issue must be established by clear and convincing evidence),
disapproved on other grounds by Nassiri v. Chiropractic Physicians' Bd.,
130 Nev., Adv. Op. 27,
    327 P.3d 487
     (2014).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
10) 1947A os!WZD
Servs. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 128 Nev., Adv. Op. 57,
    289 P.3d 201
    ,
206 n.1 (2012); Chaves v. Sievers,
    118 Nev. 288
    , 296,
    43 P.3d 1022
    , 1027
(2002); Wynn v. Smith,
    117 Nev. 6
    , 13,
    16 P.3d 424
    , 428-29 (2001).
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
Hardesty
Saitta
J.
Pickering
cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge
Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge
Marquis Aurbach Coifing
Sylvester & Polednak, Ltd.
Eighth District Court Clerk
2 Although   respondent requests that this matter be remanded to the
district court so that the district court can award appellate attorney fees,
we deny that request as unnecessary. Specifically, upon issuance of the
remittitur, jurisdiction over the underlying case automatically returns to
the district court. Dickerson v. State,
    114 Nev. 1084
    , 1087,
    967 P.2d 1132
    ,
1134 (1998).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A    en