PANORAMA TOWERS CONDO. UNIT OWNERS' ASS'N VS. HALLIER , 2021 NV 67 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                                    137 Nev., Advance Opinion      41
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    PANORAMA TOWERS                                        No. 80615
    CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNERS'
    ASSOCIATION, A NEVADA
    NONPROFIT CORPORATION,
    Appellant,
    vs.                                                      FILED .•••
    LAURENT HALLIER, AN
    INDIVIDUAL; PANORAMA TOWERS I,
    LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY
    COMPANY; PANORAMA TOWERS I
    MEZZ, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED
    LIABILITY COMPANY; AND M.J.
    DEAN CONSTRUCTION, INC., A
    NEVADA CORPORATION,
    Respondents.
    Appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment,
    certified as final under NRCP 54(3), in a construction defect action. Eighth
    Judicial District Court, Clark County; Susan Johnson, Judge.
    Vacated and remanded.
    Kemp Jones, LLP, and Michael J. Gayan and Joshua D. Carlson, Las Vegas;
    Lynch & Associates Law Group and Francis I. Lynch, Henderson; Williams
    & Gumbiner, LLP, and Scott A. Williams, San Rafael, California,
    for Appellant.
    Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP and Daniel F. PoIsenberg, Joel D.
    Henriod, and Abraham G. Smith, Las Vegas; Bremer Whyte Brown &
    O'Meara LLP and Peter C. Brown, Jeffrey W. Saab, and Devin R. Gifford,
    Las Vegas,
    for Respondents.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3,1   3 211 5"
    &Di 1947A
    BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, EN BANC.'
    OPINION
    By the Court, HERNDON, J.:
    Appellant Panorama Towers Condominium Unit Owners'
    Association filed a construction defect claim against respondents
    (collectively, the Builders), which the district court concluded was time-
    barred under the NRS 11.202 statute of repose. The Association filed two
    motions to alter or amend the court's resulting sumrnary judgment. Before
    the district court considered the second motion, the Legislature amended
    the statute of repose to extend the filing deadline and specified that the
    amendment was retroactive. The amended statute also became effective
    before the district court considered the second motion. Nevertheless, the
    district court denied the Association's motion to alter or amend the
    judgment. We conclude that, in accordance with our opinion in
    Dekker I Perich 1 Sabatini Ltd. v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 137 Nev.,
    Adv. Op. 53, 
    495 P.3d 519
     (2021), because the amended statute of repose
    was retroactive and, under that statute of repose, the Association's
    construction defect claim was timely, the district court erred in denying the
    motion.
    FACTS
    The Builders constructed the Panorama Towers in Las Vegas,
    including 616 units across two high-rise condominium buildings.
    Substantial completion of each tower corresponded with the date of its
    respective certificate of occupancy, which issued on January 16, 2008, and
    1The  Honorable Abbi Silver, Justice, voluntarily recused herself frorn
    participation in the decision of this matter.
    2
    March 31, 2008.2 The Association filed an initial construction defect action
    against the Builders in 2009, and the parties settled that action in June
    2011, but the settlement agreement applied only to known defects at that
    time.
    The Association sent the relevant underlying NRS 40.645 notice
    of construction defect to the Builders on February 24, 2016. In addition to
    other defects, the notice asserted that all of the residential units window
    assemblies were defective.3 The notice alleged that the defect permits water
    to enter the assemblies, causing corrosion to the metal parts and
    components of the wall and floor assemblies, which creates an unreasonable
    risk of structural degradation and injury to person and property.
    NRS Chapter 40 requires builders to have certain opportunities
    to investigate and repair construction defects and requires parties to
    mediate the construction defect claims before an action can be filed. See
    NRS 40.647; NRS 40.648; NRS 40.652; NRS 40.670; NRS 40.680. The
    prelitigation construction defect proceedings, including mediation, were
    completed on September 26, 2016. Two days later, the Builders filed an
    action against the Association seeking declaratory relief and damages,
    asserting that the previous settlement agreement precluded the underlying
    2Tothe extent the Association challenges the substantial completion
    dates, the Association has waived this argument on appeal by not raising it
    in its opening brief. See Khoury v. Seastrand, 
    132 Nev. 520
    , 530 n.2, 
    377 P.3d 81
    , 88 n.2 (2016) (providing that issues raised for the first time in a
    reply brief are waived).
    3The
    notice also addressed other defects, but the district court
    dismissed the claims pertaining to those defects because the notice was
    insufficient to demonstrate the defects without extrapolation, and the
    Association does not challenge the dismissal of those defects' claims in this
    appeal.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    ((l) 1,617A   .4tit,
    construction defect claims and the NRS Chapter 40 notice was insufficient.
    On March 1, 2017, the Association filed its answer and counterclaim
    asserting its construction defect causes of action, roughly nine years after
    substantial completion of the towers.
    The Builders moved for summary judgment, arguing that the
    Association's construction defect claim was time-barred under the statute
    of repose in NRS 11.202(1) (2015) because it was not filed within six years
    of the substantial completion of each tower.. See 2015 Nev. Stat., ch. 2, § 17,
    at 17. The district court concluded that because the Association filed its
    NRS Chapter 40 notice on the last day of the six-year statute of repose,
    when considering the grace period provided for in the 2015 amendment to
    NRS 11.202(1), the NRS Chapter 40 notice tolled that statute of repose.4
    The court also concluded, however, that the NRS Chapter 40 notice tolled
    the statute of repose only until 30 days after the preligitation proceedings
    were completed, and because the Association did not file its answer and
    counterclaim during those 30 days, the Association's construction defect
    claim was time-barred. Thus, the district court granted the Builders'
    motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Association's construction
    defect claim on May 23, 2019.
    Thereafter, on June 3, 2019, the Governor signed into law
    Assembly Bill (A.B.) 421, which amended NRS 11.202s statute of repose
    from six years to ten years. 2019 Nev. Stat., ch. 361, at 2257 & § 7, 2262.
    The Association filed a motion to alter or amend the court's order dismissing
    the construction defect claim in light of A.B. 421. The Builders opposed the
    4The district court reached this conclusion before our opinion in Byrne
    v. Sunridge Builders, Inc., 
    136 Nev. 604
    , 
    475 P.3d 38
     (2020), clarified that
    an NRS Chapter 40 notice cannot toll the statute of repose.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    4
    ith 1447A
    motion and requested the district court certify its order dismissing the
    construction defect claim as final under NRCP 54(b). The district court
    denied the motion to alter or amend its order, concluding that A.B. 421 did
    not become effective until October 1, 2019. The district court also granted
    the Builders motion for NRCP 54(b) certification.
    On September 9, 2019, the Association filed its second motion
    to alter or amend the judgment based on A.B. 421. Although filed before
    October 1, 2019, when A.B. 421 became effective, the hearing on the motion
    did not occur until after that date. On January 14, 2020, the district court
    denied the Association's motion, concluding the court had properly
    determined the claim was time-barred based on the effective law at the
    time.
    DISCUSSION
    An NRCP 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment may be
    appropriate to correct "manifest errors of law or fact," address "newly
    discovered or previously unavailable evidence," "prevent manifest
    injustice," or address a "change in controlling law." AA Primo Builders, LLC
    v. Washington, 
    126 Nev. 578
    , 582, 
    245 P.3d 1190
    , 1193 (2010) (internal
    quotation marks omitted). We review an order denying an NRCP 59(e)
    motion for an abuse of discretion. 
    Id. at 589,
     
    245 P.3d at 1197
    .
    The 2015 version of NRS 11.202(1) precluded construction
    defect actions from being filed more than six years after the substantial
    completion of an improvement. A.B. 421 changed the repose period in NRS
    11.202(1) from six years to ten years.5 2019 Nev. Stat., ch. 361, § 7, at 2262.
    5NRS11.202(1) is a statute of repose because it precludes actions after
    a certain amount of time, regardless of injury. See Libby v. Eighth Judicial
    Dist. Court, 
    130 Nev. 359
    , 364 n.1, 
    325 P.3d 1276
    , 1279 n.1 (2014)
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    5
    Ol I947A   AD.
    A.B. 421 also provided that "Mhe period of limitations on actions set forth
    in NRS 11.202, as amended by section 7 of this act, apply retroactively to
    actions in which the substantial completion of the improvement to the real
    property occurred before October 1, 2019." 
    Id.
     at § 11, at 2268.
    While A.B. 421 was signed into law on June 3, 2019, the
    amendment of the statute of repose did not become effective until
    October 1, 2019. NRS 218D.330(1) provides that "[e]ach law and joint
    resolution passed by the Legislature becomes effective on October 1
    following its passage, unless the law or joint resolution specifically
    prescribes a different effective date." A.B. 421 did not prescribe a different
    effective date for the amendment to the statute of repose. Further, even
    though the amendment to the statute of repose was explicitly applicable
    retroactively, a retroactive-application provision does not alter a hill's
    effective date. Thus, the amended statute of repose in A.B. 421 became
    effective on October 1, 2019, and was not retroactive until that date.
    Accordingly, at the time the district court considered the
    Association's second motion to alter or amend the judgment, there had been
    a change in controlling law since the entry of the judgment. Instead of
    considering this change in controlling law, the district court determined
    that alteration or amendment of the judgment was unnecessary because the
    court had properly concluded that the Association's claim was time-barred
    under the applicable law at the time the judgment was entered. The district
    court failed to consider the fact that the amended statute of repose was
    (explaining that "[a] statute of repose bar[s] causes of action after a certain
    period of time, regardless of whether damage or an injury has been
    discovered, whereas, a statute of limitations forecloses suit after a fixed
    period of time following the occurrence or discovery of an injury" (second
    alteration in original) (internal citations and quotations omitted)).
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    6
    (1) 047A 426.
    retroactive, which changed the applicable law not only at the time the court
    considered the motion, but also at the time the judgment was entered. In
    re Estate of Thomas, 
    116 Nev. 492
    , 495-96, 
    998 P.2d 560
    , 562 (2000) ("The
    general rule is that statutes are prospective only, unless it clearly, strongly,
    and imperatively appears from the act itself that the legislature intended
    the statute to be retrospective in its operation."); 2019 Nev. Stat., ch. 361,
    § 11, at 2268 (providing that the change to the statute of repose applies
    retroactively). Because A.B. 421s statute of repose was retroactive, the
    Legislature intended it to apply to construction defect actions pending as of
    October 1, 2019. See Dekker I Perich I Sabatini Ltd. v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
    Court, 137 Nev., Adv. Op. 53, 
    495 P.3d 519
     (2021) (explaining that the
    Legislature intended NRS 11.202s amended statute of repose to apply
    retroactively to projects completed before October 1, 2019, "to relieve
    prejudice to Nevada landowners who were unaware of property damage
    that did not manifest within the six-year repose period"). As soon as A.B.
    421 became law on October 1, 2019, all construction defect actions filed
    within ten years of substantial completion of the project were no longer
    time-barred. See 
    id.
     Because the Association's construction defect action
    was filed within nine years of the substantial completion of each of the
    towers, the action was no longer time-barred. Accordingly, the district court
    abused its discretion in denying the Association's second motion to alter or
    amend the judgment.
    CONCLUSION
    A.B. 421 became effective on October 1, 2019. As of that date,
    the statute of repose for filing construction defect claims was ten years from
    substantial completion of the project. Further, that change in the law
    applied retroactively. Because the district court did not consider the
    SUPREME COURT
    DP
    NEVADA
    10) 19417A   443gPm.
    retroactive change in the controlling law when denying the Association's
    second motion to alter or amend the judgment, we conclude the district
    court abused its discretion in denying that motion. Accordingly, as the court
    should have granted the Association's second motion to alter or amend the
    judgment, we vacate the district court's summary judgment and remand
    this matter for proceedings consistent with this opinion.6
    çÇ
    J
    Herndon
    We concur:
    Hardesty
    J.
    Parraguirre
    Stiglich
    7   J
    ,   J
    Pickering
    61nlight of this opinion, we need not reach the other arguments raised
    by the parties on appeal.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    8
    MI 1447A
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 80615

Citation Numbers: 2021 NV 67

Filed Date: 11/10/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/20/2021