Opinion ID: 2514649
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Crestdale Associates' counterclaim for breach of the separate consulting agreement

Text: Multi-Family Development argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying its request to admit into evidence an unexecuted written draft of the consulting agreement that Midby and Allsop attempted to negotiate. In this, it asserts that the proposed evidence constituted the best evidence of the parties' failure to come to a meeting of the minds as to key elements of the consulting agreement. According to Multi-Family Development, the earlier negotiations between Midby and Allsop, such as those embodied in the proposed draft agreement, are relevant to show the existence, or in this case, alleged nonexistence, of an oral contract as well as Multi-Family Development's intention not to pay Allsop a percentage of the profits from the Sienna Villas project. Under NRS 48.015, relevant evidence is defined as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. However, relevant evidence is inadmissible under NRS 48.035(1) if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues or of misleading the jury. As previously indicated, we review a district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion. [26] Here, the district court acted within its discretion in refusing to admit the unexecuted draft consulting agreement because allowing the jury to review the document may have resulted in undue confusion, concerning the existence or nonexistence of the oral consulting agreement, creating the potential for prejudice outweighing its probative value. Instead of allowing Multi-Family Development to present the potentially prejudicial evidence, the district court allowed extensive cross-examination of Allsop concerning the draft agreement and the negotiations that led to the oral consulting agreement. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit the document.