IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

WYETH RANCH COMMUNITY 

ASSOCIATION, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

MARCHAI B.T., A NEVADA BUSINESS 

TRUST, 

Res s ondent. 

No. 83069 

FILED 

APR 2 9 2022 

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE 

This is an appeal from a post-judgment order denying a request 

for attorney fees. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Elizabeth 

Goff Gonzalez, Judge.1 

Appellant requested attorney fees under NRCP 68, which the 

district court denied. In doing so, the district court found that respondent 

brought its claims against appellant in good faith; that appellant's offer of 

judgment was not reasonable in its amount given the potentially preclusive 

effect of that offer with respect to respondent's claims against nonparty SFR 

Investments; and that respondent reasonably rejected the offer given the 

offer's potentially preclusive effect. See Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 588-

89, 668 P.2d 268, 274 (1983) ("In exercising its discretion regarding the 

allowance of fees and costs under NRCP 68, the trial court must carefully 

1Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument 

is not warranted in this appeal. 
evaluate the following factors: (1) whether the plaintiffs claim was brought 

in good faith; (2) whether the defendants offer of judgment was reasonable 

and in good faith in both its timing and amount; (3) whether the plaintiffs 

decision to reject the offer and proceed to trial was grossly unreasonable or 

in bad faith; and (4) whether the fees sought by the offeror are reasonable 

and justified in amount."). 

Appellant contends that the district court erred in declining to 

award fees because respondent's claims were maintained in bad faith 

following this court's reversal and remand of a previous appeal, and that 

appellant's offer of judgment would not have preclusive effect with respect 

to respondent's claims against SFR. We are not persuaded that the district 

court abused its discretion.2 See Watson Rounds, P.C. v. Eighth Judicial 

Dist, Court, 131 Nev. 783, 787, 358 P.3d 228, 231 (2015) (reviewing a district 

court's decision regarding whether to award attorney fees for an abuse of 

discretion); MB Am., Inc. v. Alaska Pac. Leasing Co., 132 Nev. 78, 88, 367 

P.3d 1286, 1292 (2016) ("An abuse of discretion can occur when the district 

court bases its decision on a clearly erroneous factual determination or it 

disregards controlling law."). In particular, the district court denied 

appellant's motion for summary judgment against respondent after this 

court's remand, which indicates the district court still found respondent's 

claims against appellant to be potentially meritorious.3 

2We also are not persuaded by appellant's argument that a de novo 

standard of review should apply. 

3The district court also denied appellant's motion for reconsideration, 

clarifying that the claims remained potentially meritorious because 

2 
Moreover, while we question whether accepting appellant's 

offer of judgment would have had preclusive effect on respondent's claims 

against SFR, appellant did not provide the district court with any authority 

indicating that the offer would not have a preclusive effect.4 See MB Arn., 

Inc., 132 Nev. at 88, 367 P.3d at 1292 ("An abuse of discretion can occur 

when the district court bases its decision on a clearly erroneous factual 

determination or it disregards controlling law."); see also United States v. 

Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (stating that the relevant inquiry 

when reviewing for an abuse of discretion is not whether the appellate court 

would come to the same conclusion, but "whether the district court's 

decision was tenable" (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

respondent had sufficiently alleged that it was entitled to excess proceeds 

from appellant if the foreclosure sale extinguished appellant's deed of trust. 

Appellant observes on appeal that the district court's judgment following 

the bench trial contained certain findings that contradicted its earlier 

clarification, but appellant did not coherently bring that contradiction to the 

district court's attention when explaining why the Beattie v. Thomas factors 

justified an award of attorney fees, and we decline to consider the potential 

significance of this contradiction for the first time on appeal. Old Aztec 

Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623, P.2d 981, 983 (1981). 

40n appeal, appellant has cited to Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Curti 

Ranch Two Maintenance Assn, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00699-LRH-CLB, 2019 WL 

6877552, at *7 (D. Nev. Dec. 16, 2019), which held that a deed of trust 

beneficiary's settlement with an HOA does not preclude a quiet title claim 

against the HOA sale purchaser. Appellant has also cited to Bocanegra v. 

Aetna Life Insurance Co., 605 S.W.2d 848, 853 (Tex. 1980), which observed 

that "[o]ne may also receive something by way of settlement, even of 

substantial value, under an uncertain claim without making an election 

which bars recovery against another person." Appellant, however, did not 

provide either of these authorities to the district court. 

SUPREME COURT 

of 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A .4a0 

3 
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court was within its 

discretion in finding that the Beattie v. Thomas factors did not weigh in 

favor of awarding appellant attorney fees. We therefore 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.5 

Sr.J. 

Cadish 

cc: Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court 

Department 11, Eighth Judicial District Court 

Thomas J. Tanksley, Settlement Judge 

Lipson Neilson P.C. 

David J. Merrill, P.C. 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

5The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the 

decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. 

4 

Parraguirre 

J.