Title: Jones v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.

State: nevada

Issuer: Nevada Supreme Court

Document:

428 Nev., Advance Opinion |&
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MICHAEL W. JONES; AND ANALISA No. 57748

A. JONES,

Appellants, FILED
vs.

SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., PR 28 2012.

Respondent.
Appeal from a district court order denying judicial review in a
foreclosure mediation matter. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe
County; Patrick Flanagan, Judge.

Affirmé
Terry J. Thomas, Reno,
for Appellants.

Snell & Wilmer LLP and Leon F. Mead Il, Cynthia L. Alexander, and
Kelly H. Dove, Las Vegas,
for Respondent.

BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.

OPINION

By the Court, GIBBONS, J.:

In this appeal, we consider whether a signed agreement
resulting from Nevada's Foreclosure Mediation Program (FMP)
constitutes an enforceable settlement agreement, We conclude that when

an agreement is reached as a result of an FMP mediation, the parties sign

 

12-13a0S
 

the agreement, and it otherwise comports with contract law principles, the
agreement is enforceable under District Court Rule 16.!_ Therefore, we
affirm the district court’s order denying the Joneses’ petition for judicial
review.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 2006, appellants Michael W. Jones and Analisa A. Jones
purchased a home in Sparks with a loan from Home Mortgage Direct
Lenders. Home Mortgage Direct Lenders allegedly assigned the note and
deed of trust to respondent SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. The Joneses later
defaulted on their mortgage. After receiving a notice of default and
election to sell, the Joneses elected to participate in the FMP provided for
in NRS 107.086.

SunTrust's attorney, the Joneses’ attorney, and Mr. Jones
attended the mediation in person, and a representative for SunTrust
participated in the mediation by telephone, At the mediation, SunTrust
produced uncertified copies of the original deed of trust, the original note,
and the endorsement of the note to SunTrust. Sun'Trust also produced an

‘DCR 16 states:

No agreement or stipulation between the parties
in a cause or their attorneys, in respect to
proceedings therein, will be regarded unless the
same shall, by consent, be entered in the minutes
in the form of an order, or unless the same shall be
in writing subscribed by the party against whom
the same shall be alleged, or by his attorney.

*SunTrust did not provide copies of any assignments at the
foreclosure mediation.

 
automated valuation of the Joneses’ home that an online company
generated without an in-person inspection of the home, SunTrust did not
submit copies of any assignments. Despite SunTrust’s failure to produce
any assignments or certified copies of the other documents, the parties
resolved the pending foreclosure by agreeing to a short sale of the Joneses’
home, if accomplished within a specified time period. The mediator’s
statement sets forth that the parties agreed to the following terms:

14 days from 11/12/10, borrower will return short-
sale package of documents to lender, including
listing agreement for sale of the property. On or
after 1/16/2011, lender shall have the right to seek
fa certificate from the FMP to proceed with
foreclosure regardless of the status of the pending
short sale. Borrower shall still have the right to
make a short sale up to the time of foreclosure[.]
SunTrust's attorney, the Joneses’ attorney, and Mr. Jones all signed the
mediator’s statement agreeing to execute the terms of the short sale.>

Following the mediation, SunTrust twice mailed a short-sale

 

package to the Joneses, but the Joneses never returned the short:
documents and instead filed a petition for judicial review in the district
court, ‘The Joneses requested that the district court impose sanctions
against SunTrust because SunTrust violated NRS 107.086 and the
Foreclosure Mediation Rules (FMRs) by failing to provide the required

sWhile Ms. Jones was not present at the mediation, the Joneses do
not argue that their attorney was not authorized to bind her to the
agreement. To the extent that the Joneses suggest their attorney provided
incompetent representation, the Joneses waived this argument by failing
to raise it before the district court. See Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v, Brown, 97
Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) (‘A point not urged in the trial court,
unless it goes to the jurisdiction of that court, is deemed to have been
waived and will not be considered on appeal.”).

 

 
documents and mediating in bad faith. After conducting a hearing on the
petition, the district court denied the petition, finding that the Joneses
lentered into an enforceable short-sale agreement and therefore waived
any claims under NRS 107.086 and the FMRs. The district court order
allowed SunTrust to seek a certificate from the FMP to proceed with the
foreclosure against the Joneses based on the terms of the short-sale
agreement. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
jort-sale agreems ble settlem:

The Joneses argue that the short-sale agreement with
[SunTrust is not enforceable because the agreement lacks consideration
/and SunTrust failed to comply with NRS 107.086 and the FMRs.

When reviewing whether the parties to a foreclosure
[mediation reached an enforceable settlement agreement, we must “defer to
the district court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous or not based
jon substantial evidence.” May v. Anderson, 121 Nev. 668, 672-73, 119
P.3d 1254, 1257 (2005). “Substantial evidence is evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Whitemaine v. Aniskovich, 124 Nev. 302, 308, 183 P.3d 137, 141 (2008).
We review a “district court's decision regarding the imposition of sanctions
for a party's participation in the Foreclosure Mediation Program under an
abuse of discretion standard.” Pasillas v, HSBC Bank USA, 127 Nev. __,
__., 255 P.3d 1281, 1286 (2011).

A settlement agreement is a contract, and thus, must be

supported by consideration in order to be enforceable. May, 121 Nev. at
672, 119 P.3d at 1257. Consideration is the exchange of a promise or
jperformance, bargained for by the parties. Pink v. Busch, 100 Nev. 684,
}688, 691 P.2d 456, 459 (1984) (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts §

 

 
71(), (2) (1981). If the settlement agreement is reduced to a writing
signed by the party that it is being enforced against, or by his or her
attorney, then it is enforceable under DCR 16.‘ See Resnick v. Valente, 97
Nev. 615, 616-17, 637 P.2d 1205, 1206 (1981) (reversing a district court's
enforcement of a settlement agreement when the agreement was not
reduced to a signed writing or entered in the court minutes following a
stipulation)

‘Substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding that
the mediator’s statement containing the written short-sale terms, signed
by all parties, including Mr. Jones and the attorney representing the
Joneses, constitutes an enforceable settlement agreement. First, the
short-sale agreement was supported by consideration. In exchange for the
Joneses’ agreement to a short sale, SunTrust agreed to suspend the
foreclosure proceedings against the Joneses for two months. If the short
sale was not accomplished within the two-month period, SunTrust could
proceed with the foreclosure, but the Joneses maintained the right to
conduct a short sale until the time of the foreclosure sale. Second, since
we conclude that the district court properly found that the settlement
agreement was enforceable, and the terms of the agreement allowed
SunTrust to seek a certificate and pursue foreclosure if the short sale was
not accomplished within a specified time, the Joneses’ claim that the
foreclosure cannot proceed based on alleged violations of NRS 107.086 and
the FMRs lacks merit. ‘The parties expressly agreed to the foreclosure i

 

the event that the short sale did not take place. Therefore, the district

‘If a participant in the FMP appears at a mediation by telephone,
the party must provide a copy of the settlement agreement with his or her
signature to the mediator in order to ensure compliance with DCR 16.

 

 
——s

   
 
 
  
    
       

court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to impose sanctions against
SunTrust. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order.

Kilbooa

Gibbons

oie
Che |

 

 

 

 

Pickering

hate

jardesty

 

 

Parraguirre

5In their opening brief, the Joneses request that this court take
judicial notice of a Department of Business and Industry order, which does
not involve the parties in this appeal. Also, in its answering brief,
SunTrust asks this court to strike portions of the opening brief. Having
considered the requests, and in light of NRAP 27(a)(1), requiring an
application for an order or other relief to be made by motion, we deny both
requests.