With respect to the receiver, appellant neither challenged the 

appointment nor raised allegations of bias below. Further, appellant does 

not now explain how his rights were prejudiced by any conflict of interest; 

although his views on what should happen with the partnership property 

upon dissolution differed slightly from those of the receiver, the district 

court properly considered all contentions in deciding that trying to sell the 

Ho Hum Motel traditionally and placing Everybody's Inn for auction was 

appropriate, and those decisions are supported by expert testimony in the 

record. Accordingly, reversal is not warranted based on alleged bias. 

NRCP 61; Cook v. Sunrise Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 124 Nev. 997, 1006-07, 194 

P.3d 1214, 1219-20 (2008) (reversal is not warranted unless prejudicial 

error affecting a party's substantial rights is demonstrated); 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."). 

Regarding the partnership agreement, although appellant 

urged the court to apply its terms, the district court was not asked to 

determine whether the parties' partnerships were governed by the original 

written agreement even after the death of one of the original three 

partners and the subsequent addition of a new partner, and thus it is 

unclear whether the agreement remains in effect. Moreover, the relevant 

agreement clause, provision 14, applied only to dissolution "by death or 

withdrawal," and here, the district court ordered the partnerships 

dissolved under NRS 87.320(1)(c) (conduct tending to prejudicially affect 

the business), as well as by the parties' agreement to dissolve. 

Accordingly, the court had authority to direct the winding up process. 

NRS 87.370. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e 
With respect to the Ho Hum Motel, appellant sought a 

traditional sale, subject to court-imposed time limits, which is what the 

district court ordered. The motel was to be auctioned only if an acceptable 

buyer could not be located within 120 days. Accordingly, appellant is not 

aggrieved by the district court's decision, NRAP 3A(a), and cannot now 

complain that the motel should have been sold to him directly. Old Aztec 

Mine, 97 Nev. at 52, 623 P.2d at 983. 

As for the Everybody's Inn, the court reasonably concluded 

that sale by auction was appropriate) NRS 87.380 (providing that 

partnership property may be applied to discharge liabilities and then any 

surplus paid to the partners in cash); Disotell u. Stiltner, 100 P.3d 890, 

893-94 (Alaska 2004) (explaining that uniform act language identical to 

NRS 87.380 is usually interpreted as a general, if not absolute, rule 

favoring liquidation); Dreifuerst v. Dreifuerst, 280 N.W.2d 335, 338-39 

(Wis. Ct. App. 1979) (explaining the benefits of liquidation, including 

determining fair market value and allowing the former partners to acquire 

it, perhaps at a lower price); see also Estate of Matteson v. Matteson, 749 

N.W.2d 557, 566 (Wis. 2008) (explaining that district courts have broad 

discretion in equity proceedings for the dissolution and liquidation of a 

partnership and will be affirmed if the relevant facts are examined, a 

proper legal standard is applied, and a reasonable conclusion is reached). 

The property was encumbered by substantial debt and physical liabilities, 

one expert concluded its best value was as a tear-down, and there was no 

'In appellant's June 24, 2015, motion for a stay, he indicated that 

the Everybody's Inn Motel was to be auctioned on June 26, 2015. 

Accordingly, it appears that this issue might be moot. Nevertheless, as it 

is unclear whether the property was sold, we address the merits. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1907A 912g139 
, J. 

Saitt 

J. 

showing that appellant was ready and able to buy out respondent's share 

of the partnership. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.' 

Gibbons 

cc: Hon. Lidia Stiglich, District Judge 

Khalid Ali 

Robison Belaustegui Sharp & Low 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

2To the extent that appellant raises other issues, including failure to 

receive manager's wages, appellant apparently reached a settlement 

agreement and thus did not raise those issues at trial. Accordingly, they 

are waived. Old Aztec Mine, 97 Nev. at 52, 623 P.2d at 983. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A a4trA