that he could pay Lyle the $250,000. Respondent Gary Mikuni was 

appointed trustee of Jean's trust and wrote a letter to Brady demanding 

an accounting of the rents and expenses of the property and thanking him 

for serving as a property manager. In response, Brady filed the 

underlying litigation against Lyle and the trust, and Lyle and the trust 

asserted counterclaims. After Brady missed two mortgage payments, the 

bank foreclosed on the property. Shortly before the bench trial, Mikuni 

resigned as trustee, but the district court allowed the trust, through 

counsel, to proceed and defend at trial. After the bench trial, the district 

court found for the defense on Brady's claims, found for Brady on the 

counterclaims, and ordered all parties to bear their own attorney fees and 

costs. Brady appealed. 

Brady first argues that default should have been taken 

against the trust because Mikuni resigned as trustee shortly before the 

bench trial. Regardless of the validity of Mikuni's resignation, the trustee 

had previously authorized counsel to appear for the trust in the 

underlying litigation, and this counsel and the trust beneficiary, Lyle 

Hirata, did appear at trial. The trust was therefore adequately 

represented at trial, and default was not appropriate. See Cowen v. Knott, 

252 So. 2d 400, 402 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971) (noting that "ample 

authority" permits a trust beneficiary "to appear and defend" at trial if 

"the trustee fails to do so"). To the extent that Mikuni was unavailable for 

trial, the parties agreed to submit his deposition testimony in lieu of his 

direct testimony. Accordingly, we do not perceive any error requiring 

reversal regarding Mikuni's resignation as trustee. 

Next, Brady argues that the district court failed to make 

findings of fact concerning his fraud claims. In the case of missing 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A 
findings of fact, "if the record is clear and will support the judgment, 

findings may be implied." Pease v. Taylor, 86 Nev. 195, 197, 467 P.2d 109, 

110 (1970). Here, the district court listed the elements of the causes of 

action for intentional and negligent misrepresentation, the fraud claims, 

but did not make any specific findings concerning them. Nevertheless, the 

district court did find that, while Brady failed to make two mortgage 

payments, leading to foreclosure, he could have made those mortgage 

payments from the property revenue, and that "it was not clear from the 

evidence" whether the failure of the property sale and the ultimate 

foreclosure was caused by Brady's financial situation or Mikuni's 

involvement in the pending sale. In other words, Brady did not prove that 

the respondents' actions or omissions caused Brady's damages. After 

reviewing the record, we conclude that it supports the judgment and that 

reversal is not warranted. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.' 

L. ill Or J. 

el 

Gibbons Pickering 

) J. 

cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge 

Nathaniel J. Reed, Settlement Judge 

Ron N. Brady, Sr. 

Meier & Fine, LLC 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'Brady's April 21, 2014, motion to expand the record is denied. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 3 

NEVADA 

(0) I94Th