Case ID: nev_92/html/0282-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FRED L. EIKELBERGER and MARGARET A. EIKELBERGER, Appellants, v. EARL W. ROGERS, Respondent.
    No. 7962
    May 13, 1976
    549 P.2d 748
    
      [Rehearing denied June 17, 1976]
    
      Lohse and Lohse, Chartered, of Reno, for Appellants.
    
      Ellis R. Ferguson, of Reno, J. Rayner Kjeldsen, of Lovelock, and Vargas, Bartlett & Dixon, of Reno, for Respondent.
   OPINION

Per Curiam:

This appeal is from a judgment of the district court entered for the defendant notwithstanding a jury verdict for the plaintiffs in the total sum of $63,000. That court ruled, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to judgment. Dudley v. Prima, 84 Nev. 549, 445 P.2d 31 (1968). We agree with that determination and affirm.

The Eikelbergers commenced this action against Rogers, a certified public accountant, to recover damages for accounting errors in statements prepared by Rogers for John and Mary Tolotti for use in litigation between the Eikelbergers and the Tolottis. The Eikelbergers did not employ Rogers. The Eikelbergers did not rely upon the accounting statements prepared by Rogers. To the contrary, they challenged those statements in the litigation with the Tolottis. Absent a professional relationship between the Eikelbergers and Rogers, or a reliance upon the accounting statements prepared, we perceive no legal basis for damages claimed to have been incurred by the Eikelbergers.

Affirmed.