Massi v. Nobis ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    ALBERT D. MASSI, AN INDIVIDUAL,                       No. 68483
    Appellant,                                                         FILED
    VS.
    DONALD NOBIS; AND MARY NOBIS,                                      APR 1 5 2016
    AS INDIVIDUALS,                                                  TRi.CIE K UNDEMAN
    CLERK OF, SUPREME COUR
    Respondents.                                                  BY      • 70t-4-1-160
    DEPUTY CLERK
    ALBERT D. MASSI, AN INDIVIDUAL,                       No. 68719.,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    DONALD NOBIS; AND MARY NOBIS,
    AS INDIVIDUALS,
    Respondents.
    ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART
    AND REMANDING (DOCKET NO. 68483),
    AND VACATING (DOCKET NO. 68719)
    These are appeals from a district court summary judgment
    (Docket No. 68483) and a post-judgment award of costs (Docket No. 68719)
    in a contract action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; James
    Crockett, Judge.
    Docket No. 68483
    The parties agreed to dismiss a previous action as a result of a
    settlement agreement entered into before the district court judge. Under
    the agreement, respondents agreed to transfer their interest in certain
    property to appellant in exchange for dismissal. Prior to entering into
    that settlement agreement, respondents represented to appellant that
    they had originally invested $500,000 in one of the properties, when in
    fact, they had only invested $250,000. Appellant brought the underlying
    action and the district court converted respondents' NRCP 12(b)(5) motion
    to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment before granting the motion.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    tO) 1047A 49,
    The district court properly converted the motion to dismiss to
    a motion for summary judgment as the court considered evidence outside
    of the pleadings.   See NRCP 12(b) (providing that if the court considers
    matters outside of the pleadings in reviewing an NRCP 12(b)(5) motion,
    "the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment"). The district
    court also properly granted respondents summary judgment on appellant's
    breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and punitive damages causes of
    action. See Wood v. Safeway, Inc.,   
    121 Nev. 724
    , 729, 
    121 P.3d 1026
    , 1029
    (2005) (explaining that this court reviews a district court's order granting
    summary judgment de novo). There is no genuine issue of material fact
    regarding whether respondents' original investment was made a material
    term of the settlement agreement as it was not included in the recitation
    of the settlement agreement accepted by the district court judge.   Massi v.
    Nobis, Docket No. 66001 (Order of Affirmance, Feb. 26, 2016). And
    respondents have transferred their interest in the subject property as
    required by the settlement agreement. Additionally, punitive damages is
    not a cause of action, but a remedy, and as a remedy, such damages may
    still be available on any remaining causes of action.   See Doe v. Colligan,
    
    753 P.2d 144
    , 145 n.2 (Alaska 1988) ("Punitive damages do not constitute
    a cause of action."). Thus, we affirm the district court's summary
    judgment regarding appellant's causes of action for breach of contract,
    unjust enrichment, and punitive damages.
    We conclude, however, that the district court erred in granting
    summary judgment concerning appellant's causes of action for negligent
    misrepresentation and fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and
    fraudulent concealment because genuine issues of material fact exist
    regarding these claims.   
    Wood, 121 Nev. at 729
    , 121 P.3d at 1029. While
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A
    the district court granted summary judgment on the fraud-based claim
    because the original investment amount was not a material term to the
    settlement agreement, the district court erred in doing so because even if
    the amount was not a material term to the agreement, it may still have
    been a material fact underlying the parties' agreement.         See Nelson v.
    Heer, 
    123 Nev. 217
    , 225, 
    163 P.3d 420
    , 426 (2007) (outlining the factors for
    intentional misrepresentation and providing that "the suppression or
    omission of a material fact" can constitute a false representation (internal
    quotation omitted and emphasis added)).
    Appellant provided the district court with declarations of
    value signed by respondents providing that their interest in the subject
    property was $500,000 and alleged that he would not have entered into
    the agreement if he had known it was less. And while appellant had
    already invested in the same property, it is unclear from the evidence in
    the record whether such an investment would prevent appellant from
    justifiably relying on respondents' representation regarding their interest.
    See Collins v. Burns, 
    103 Nev. 394
    , 397, 
    741 P.2d 819
    , 821 (1987)
    (explaining that a lack of justifiable reliance bars recovery for the opposing
    party's intentional misrepresentation). Because genuine issues of
    material fact exist concerning appellant's causes of action for negligent
    misrepresentation and fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and
    fraudulent concealment, we reverse the district court's summary judgment
    of those claims and remand this matter to the district court for
    proceedings consistent with this order.
    Docket No. 68719
    In light of our decision to reverse in part the district court's
    summary judgment order, we vacate the district court's award of costs to
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    MaittAtTrattiVO
    respondents as the prevailing parties under NRS 18.020(3) that is being
    challenged in Docket No. 68719.
    It is so ORDERED.
    tA-t‘
    Douglas
    J.
    Gibbed
    cc: Hon. James Crockett, District Judge
    Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge
    Cap & Kudler
    Hutchison & Steffen, LLC
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    4
    (0) I947A
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 68719

Filed Date: 4/15/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021