IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA


SAXTON INCORPORATED, A NEVADA CORPORATION;                       Case No.: 36412
AND  LAKE  TONOPAH
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A NEVADA LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP,
Appellants,

vs.

VOA NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION, A
LOUISIANA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION,


Respondent.

-------------------------------------------


                         ORDER GRANTING STAY AND LIMITED
                         -------------------------------
                     REMAND FOR DETERMINATION OF BOND AMOUNT
                     ---------------------------------------

     This  is  an  appeal  from  a district court order clarifying the rights of
the  parties  with respect to a prior judgement.  Appellants have filed a motion
for a stay of the district court's order pending appeal.  Respondent opposes the
motion. (1)

     In  determining  whether  to  grant  a  stay  pending  appeal,  this  court
generally  considers  the  following  four  factors:

     (1) Whether the object of an appeal will be defeated if the stay is denied;
     (2) Whether appellant will suffer irreparable or serious injury if the stay
         is  denied;
     (3) Whether  respondent  will  suffer  irreparable or serious injury if the
         stay granted;  and
     (4) Whether  appellant  is  likely  to  prevail on the merits in an appeal.


See  NRAP  8 ( c).  After considering the motion, the opposition, and the reply,
---
we  conclude  that  a  stay  is  warranted  in  these  circumstances, subject to
appellants'  posting of a bond.  See NRAP 8 (b).  We hereby grant the motion for
                                 ---
a  stay  of the district court's July 11, 2000, order in case number A389300, on
the  condition  that  appellants  file a bond in the district court.  Appellants
assert  that  they  are  willing  to  post  a  bond in the amount of $1,000,000.
Respondent  requests that appellants be required to post a bond in the amount of

------------------------
(1)  We grant appellants' motion to file a reply.  The clerk of this court shall
file the  reply  provisionally  received  on  July  20,  2000.


<PAGE>
$1,506,000.  This court is not in a position to determine the appropriate amount
of the bond, as the amount is disputed.  See, e.g., Round Hill Gen.Imp. Dist. v.
                                         ---  ----
Newman,  97  Nev-  601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (noting that "an appellate
court  is  not  an  appropriate  forum in which to resolve disputed questions of
fact").  Accordingly,  we  remand  this  matter  to  the  district court for the
limited purpose of determining the appropriate amount of the bond.  The district
court  shall  determine the bond amount within twenty (20) days from the date of
this  order.  Appellants  shall  have  twenty  (20)  days  from  the date of the
district  court's  order setting the amount of the bond within which to post the
bond  and submit proof to the clerk of this court that the bond has been posted.
We caution appellants that failure to comply with the bond condition will result
in  this  court's  vacation  of  the  stay.

     It is so ORDERED.

                                                ------------------------  ,   J.
                                                Shearing


                                                ------------------------  ,   J.
                                                Leavitt


                                                ------------------------  ,   J.
                                                Becker


cc:    Hon.  Valorie  Vega,  District  Judge
       Brice  Buehler,  Settlement  Judge
       Kolesar  &  Leatham,  Chtd.
       Beckley  Singleton  Jemison  Cobeaga  &  List
       Clark  County  Clerk


<PAGE>