IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

No. 81713 

: 

PILE 

CHRISTIANA TRUST, A DIVISION OF 

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND 

SOCIETY, FSB, NOT IN ITS 

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT AS 

TRUSTEE OF ARLP TRUST 3, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, A 

NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY, 

Res • ondent. 

ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND 

This is an appeal from a district court judgment in an action to 

quiet title. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jacqueline M. 

Bluth, Judge.1 

This is the second appeal in this matter. In the first appeal, we 

reversed the district court's judgment for respondent, concluding that the 

district court erred when it determined appellant lacked standing to litigate 

this matter. See Christiana Tr. v. SFR Illus. Pool 1, LLC, No. 75871, 2019 

WL 5490999, at *1-2 (Nev. Oct. 24, 2019) (Order of Reversal and Remand). 

We also declined to affirm on alternative grounds, as the district court's 

judgment included a finding that appellant's predecessor was not mailed 

the statutorily required Notice of Sale.2 See id. at *2-3 & n.3. We concluded 

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

is not warranted in this appeal. 

2A1though respondent disputed the evidentiary basis for this finding 

in the first appeal, respondent did not dispute that the district court's 

judgment included this finding. 

2_ 2-ONFL 
our disposition by explaining that we were "ORDER[ING1 the judgment of 

the district court REVERSED AND REMAND[ING] . . . to the district court 

for proceedings consistent with this order." Id. at *3. 

On remand, the parties submitted supplemental briefing on the 

issue of whether the Notice of Sale had been mailed to appellant's 

predecessor. The district court again entered judgment for respondent, this 

time concluding that appellant had not introduced admissible evidence at 

the previous trial to support the earlier finding. In so doing, the district 

court observed that "the Supreme Court did not remand for a new triar 

when we resolved the first appeal and that, as a consequence, "there is no 

further proceeding in which the custodian of records could be presented to 

admit the Proforma records." 

Now in this appeal, appellant contends that the district court 

erred in determining that this court had prohibited the district court from 

considering new evidence on remand. To the extent the district court 

interpreted our previous disposition as such, we agree with appellant. Our 

previous disposition contained no such prohibition. See Liu v. Christopher 

Homes, LLC, 130 Nev. 147, 151, 321 P.3d 875, 877 (2014) (reviewing de novo 

the interpretation of this court's previous dispositions). And because we 

cannot discern whether the district court would have reached the same 

conclusion in the absence of this potential misinterpretation, we again are 

compelled to reverse and remand. On remand, the district court is free to 

exercise its own discretion in determining whether, and if so to what extent, 

the parties should be permitted to introduce additional evidence.3 See 

Andolino v. State, 99 Nev. 346, 351-52, 662 P.2d 631, 634 (1983) ("Generally, 

3This pertains not only to the Notice of Sale issue but also to 

appellant's excused-for-futility argument relating to a superpriority tender. 

SUPREME COURT 

Of 

NEVADA 

2 

OA 1947A alais> 
/ •u-Gi..t e.e.wt-,

, 

 , J 

Hardesty 

J. 

the decision to reopen a case for the introduction of additional evidence is 

within the sound discretion of the trial court."). 

Respondent contends that we can affirm on alternative 

grounds, but once again, we decline to do so. Respondent's alternative 

arguments are fact-intensive, and "[a]n appellate court is not particularly 

well-suited to make factual determinations in the first instance." Ryan's 

Express Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Amador Stage Lines, Inc., 128 Nev. 289, 299, 

279 P.3d 166, 172 (2012). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND 

REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with 

this order. 

cc: Hon. Jacqueline M. Bluth, District Judge 

William C. Turner, Settlement Judge 

Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas 

Kim Gilbert Ebron 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

(0) 1947A