Opinion ID: 2614979
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Money owed

Text: Soebbing argues there existed a material issue of fact as to whether Carpet Barn had paid commissions to other contract salesmen after their employment with Carpet Barn ended. To support his position, Soebbing points to his affidavit and deposition, wherein he stated the following: (1) Sayegh informed him that Steve Lee, a former contract salesman, had received commissions after Mr. Lee was terminated; and (2) Carpet Barn paid Tom Lee, another former contract salesman, commissions after his termination of employment. When asked on what evidence he based the second statement, Soebbing responded, [Tom Lee] told me. The district court concluded that this evidence was not competent as it constituted hearsay evidence. Soebbing argues that Sayegh's statement about Steve Lee was an admission against interest and thus not hearsay. [1] Soebbing argues that Tom Lee's statement would be admissible because it would not be offered for the truth of the matter asserted but to show Soebbing had knowledge that others had been paid by Carpet Barn on their commissions after they had terminated their employment. The evidence regarding Tom Lee, which clearly was hearsay, would be irrelevant if it was not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. That is, the fact that Soebbing subjectively believed that Tom Lee had been paid commissions does not control his arrangement with Carpet Barn. As for the evidence concerning Steve Lee, we agree that this would be admissible as an admission against interest. See NRS 51.035(3)(a). However, this evidence does not raise a material dispute. Soebbing sought commissions for contracts which he had not yet serviced. The arrangement between the parties was that Soebbing earned his commissions by signing and servicing the contracts. There was no written or oral agreement that Soebbing would receive a commission for unserviced contracts. [2] Thus Carpet Barn did not owe Soebbing commissions on those contracts. Consequently, the district court properly granted summary judgment on this claim.