Opinion ID: 2453733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Failure to satisfy statutory mandates is a sanctionable offense

Text: As discussed above, under NRS 107.086(5), there are four distinct violations a party to a foreclosure mediation can make: (1) fail[ure] to attend the mediation, (2) fail[ure] to participate in the mediation in good faith, (3) failure to bring to the mediation each document required, and (4) failure to demonstrate the authority or access to a person with the authority [to modify the loan]. If any one of these violations occurs, the mediator must recommend sanctions. Id. If the homeowner petitions for judicial review, [t]he court may issue an order imposing such sanctions against the beneficiary of the deed of trust or the representative as the court determines appropriate. Id. We interpret NRS 107.086(5) to mean that the commission of any one of these four statutory violations prohibits the program administrator from certifying the foreclosure process to proceed and may also be sanctionable. See Tarango v. SIIS, 117 Nev. 444, 451 n. 20, 25 P.3d 175, 180 n. 20 (2001) (explaining that may can be interpreted as shall in order to carry out the Legislature's intent, which in the instant case was to make mandatory the requirements set forth in NRS 107.086(5)). In this case, despite the mediator's opinion that respondents did not participate in the mediation in good faith based on their failure to comply with the FMRs, the district court did not impose sanctions and instead entered a Letter of Certification that allowed respondents to proceed with the foreclosure process on the Pasillases' property. The district court essentially ignored the fact that respondents failed to bring to the mediation each document required and did not have the authority or access to a person with the authority to modify the loan, failures which we determine constitute sanctionable offenses. Thus, the district court's order directing the program administrator to enter a letter of certification and its failure to consider sanctions was an abuse of discretion because respondents clearly violated NRS 107.086 and the FMRs. [10] This abuse requires us to remand the case for the district court to consider appropriate sanctions. The nature of the sanctions imposed on the beneficiary or its representative is within the discretion of the district court. We have previously listed factors to aid district courts when considering sanctions as punishment for litigation abuses. See Young v. Johnny Ribeiro Building, 106 Nev. 88, 93, 787 P.2d 777, 780 (1990); see also Bahena v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 126 Nev. ___, ___, 235 P.3d 592, 598-99 (2010); Arnold, 123 Nev. at 415-16, 168 P.3d at 1053. However, we conclude that other factors, more specific to the foreclosure mediation context, apply when a district court is considering sanctions in such a case. When determining the sanctions to be imposed in a case brought pursuant to NRS 107.086 and the FMRs, district courts should consider the following nonexhaustive list of factors: whether the violations were intentional, the amount of prejudice to the nonviolating party, and the violating party's willingness to mitigate any harm by continuing meaningful negotiation. Because, in this case, the foreclosing party's failure to bring the required documents to the mediation and to have someone present at the mediation with the authority to modify the loan were sanctionable offenses under the Foreclosure Mediation Program, the district court abused its discretion when it denied the Pasillases' petition for judicial review and ordered the program administrator to enter a letter of certification authorizing the foreclosure process to proceed. Therefore, we reverse the district court's order and remand this matter to the district court with instructions to determine the appropriate sanctions for respondents' violations of the statutory and rule-based requirements. We concur: DOUGLAS, C.J., CHERRY, SAITTA, GIBBONS, PICKERING and PARRAGUIRRE, JJ.