findings are not clearly erroneous and are supported by substantial 

evidence. Cnty. of Clark v. Sun State Props., 119 Nev. 329, 334, 72 P.3d 

954, 957 (2003). 

BAC has the burden to prove that it strictly complied with the 

requirements of NRS 107.086(4), see Leyva, 127 Nev. at , 255 P.3d at 

1279, but nothing in the record demonstrates that Reyes-Marrufo rebutted 

BAC's contention that it presented the original note at the mediation. 

While Reyes-Marrufo argues that he never personally received a certified 

copy of the original note, he informed the district court that he could not 

say for sure that an original copy was not brought to the mediation, and 

the mediator did not check the box indicating that BAC failed to bring the 

required original documentation. Accordingly, we conclude that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that BAC 

produced a certified copy of the original note at the mediation as required 

by NRS 107.086(4). 

Furthermore, there is no indication in the record that ReyesMarrufo presented any evidence to refute BAC's contention that the 

reason a loan modification was not offered was because modification was 

not feasible given Reyes-Marrufo's negative monthly income. In fact, his 

own counsel stated in the district court proceedings that even making a 

modified payment would be a "struggle" for Reyes-Marrufo. Similarly, 

Reyes-Marrufo failed to sufficiently prove that BAC's representative 

lacked authority to negotiate a loan modification had Reyes-Marrufo 

qualified for one. First, the mediator did not check the boxes indicating 

that BAC participated in bad faith or did not have a representative with 

authority present. Second, BAC argues, as it did in the district court, that 

Reyes-Marrufo was unwilling to discuss a short sale during mediation and 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
that a telephone number was given to him in case he changed his mind. 

Although the district court heard conflicting testimony as to why a 

telephone number was given to Reyes-Marrufo to call instead of discussing 

a short-sale option with him at the time of mediation, it was free to weigh 

this evidence in favor of BAC and find that the evidence presented did not 

support a finding of bad faith on the part of BAC or that BAC's 

representative lacked authority. 

Because we conclude that sufficient evidence supports the 

district court's determination that BAC brought the required documents, 

participated in good faith, and had a representative present with the 

authority to negotiate as required by NRS 107.086(4) and (5), we conclude 

that the district court's determination was not clearly erroneous. See 

Cnty. of Clark, 119 Nev. at 334, 72 P.3d at 957 (stating that this court will 

not overturn a district court's factual findings if such findings are not 

clearly erroneous and are supported by substantial evidence); Bacher v. 

State Eng'r, 122 Nev. 1110, 1121, 146 P.3d 793, 800 (2006) (holding that it 

is not the function of this court to "examine witness credibility or reweigh 

the evidence"). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 
C.J. 

J. 

Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court 

AFFIRMED. 

Hardesty 

Parraguirre 

Saitta 

J. 

cc: Hon. Donald M. Mosley, District Judge 

Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 14 

Crosby & Fox, LLC 

McCarthy & Holthus, LLP/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

4