order granting attorney fees and costs. Second Judicial District Court, 

Washoe County; Brent T. Adams, Judge. 

Appellant LBT, LLC, brought an action against respondent 

developers Sky Vista Associates, LLC, and Silverwing Development and 

respondent property owner Sky Vista Homeowners Association for 

declaratory relief and reformation, seeking amendment of a final 

subdivision tract map for a planned unit development. LBT, the adjacent 

property owner to the parcel at issue, wished to include an access 

easement benefiting its property that it claims was excluded by mistake 

when the final map was approved. The district court ultimately found 

that it lacked jurisdiction because LBT failed to exhaust administrative 

remedies and dismissed the action. The district court subsequently 

awarded attorney fees to Sky Vista Homeowners Association under NRS 

18.010. These appeals followed.' 

On appeal, we consider de novo whether LBT's predecessors 

failed to exhaust administrative remedies, effectively ending the case. 

Wyeth v. Rowatt, 126 Nev. , 244 P.3d 765, 775 (2010) (stating that 

we review legal questions de novo). While the failure-to-exhaust doctrine 

was once couched in terms of jurisdiction, this court has since made it 

clear that the failure to exhaust administrative remedies results in the 

controversy being unripe for review and renders it nonjusticiable. Allstate 

Ins. Co. v. Thorpe, 123 Nev. 565, 571, 170 P.3d 989, 993 (2007). Because 

LBT's predecessors did not properly participate in the administrative 

process and exhaust administrative remedies, having failed to appeal the 

Reno City Council's decision approving the final map, we conclude that the 

'The parties are familiar with the facts and we do not recount them 

further except as necessary for our disposition. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
issue was not ripe for review. See Mesagate Homeowners' Ass'n v. City of 

Fernley, 124 Nev. 1092, 1100-01, 194 P.3d 1248, 1254 (2008). Pursuant to 

NRS 278.3195(1) and (4), a petition for judicial review can only be filed in 

the district court by a person who administratively appealed the decision. 2 

Because this failure to exhaust remedies bars judicial review of the 

contested map provisions, we affirm the district court's decision granting 

an NRCP 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss. 3 

2While LBT argues that its predecessors were not aggrieved, and 

thus could not appeal, we conclude that under the plain language of NRS 

278.3195 and Reno Land Development Code § 18.06.208, LBT's 

predecessors were aggrieved and entitled to appeal the approval of the 

final map. In fact, they appeared numerous times to discuss and 

challenge the tentative map. 

3LBT also argues that neither it nor its predecessors were provided 

with notice of the error, depriving it of the opportunity to file an appeal or 

take any action. NRS 278.0235 limits judicial review "with respect to any 

final action, decision or order of any governing body, commission or 

board . . . unless the action or proceeding is commenced within 25 days 

after the date of filing of notice of the final action, decision or order . . . ." 

The scope of NRS 278.0235 concerning notice provisions for applicants, see 

Cnty. of Clark v. Doumani, 114 Nev. 46, 51-52, 952 P.2d 13, 16-17 (1998), 

overruled on other grounds by Kay v. Nunez, 122 Nev. 1100, 1104, 146 

P.3d 801, 804 (2006), is not the same type of notice due to non-applicants 

such as LBT and its predecessors. We conclude that public recordation is 

sufficient to apprise a non-applicant of the approval of a final map. See, 

i.e., Hubbard v. Planning Comm'n of Ridgefield, 196 A.2d 760, 763 (Conn. 

1963); Caron v. City of Auburn, 567 A.2d 66, 67 (Me. 1989); Lizak v. Faria, 

476 A.2d 1189, 1198-99 (N.J. 1984). Here, when the final map was 

approved, it was recorded and was readily available to the public, 

including LBT and its predecessors. Moreover, the record demonstrates 

that LBT's predecessors had representatives participating in the Reno 

City Planning Commission meetings wherein the map was publicly 

presented and discussed, and did not object to the map being recorded as 

is. Therefore, we conclude that LBT's predecessors had sufficient notice of 

the map's contents and could have timely filed a challenge. 

3 
J. 

Accordingly, we 4 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 5 

(-L 

Hardesty 

Parraguirre 

cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge 

Jonathan L. Andrews, Settlement Judge 

Prezant & Mollath 

Reno City Attorney 

Kreitlen & Walker 

Kern & Associates, Ltd. 

Washoe County School District Legal Department 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

4LBT also challenges the award of attorney fees. We conclude that 

the award was proper, as it was undisputed that LBT's predecessors failed 

to exhaust administrative remedies. Because the complaint was brought 

without reasonable grounds and NRS 18.010(2)(b) must be liberally 

construed in favor of awarding attorney fees when appropriate, we affirm 

the award. See NRS 18.010(2)(b); Baldonado v. Wynn Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 

951, 968, 194 P.3d 96, 107 (2008). 

5Due to the resolution of this appeal on ripeness grounds, we decline 

to reach the parties' remaining contentions. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4