Opinion ID: 1192598
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The First Easement.

Text: Breliant contends that the district court's conclusion that the First Easement was not extinguished and, if it was, then it was re-created and/or revived, is not supported by substantial evidence adduced at trial. We agree. Where the trial court, sitting without a jury, makes a determination predicated upon conflicting evidence, that determination will not be disturbed on appeal where supported by substantial evidence. Trident Construction v. West Electric, 105 Nev. 423, 427, 776 P.2d 1239, 1241 (1989). Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. State Emp. Security v. Hilton Hotels, 102 Nev. 606, 608, 729 P.2d 497, 498 (1986). In a quiet title action, the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff to prove good title in himself. See, e.g., Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, 51 Cal.2d 702, 336 P.2d 525 (1959); Olsen v. Park Daughters Investment Company, 29 Utah 2d 421, 511 P.2d 145, 146 (1973). Moreover, there is a presumption in favor of the record titleholder. Cf. Biasi v. Leavitt, 101 Nev. 86, 89-90, 692 P.2d 1301, 1304 (1985) (adverse possession claimant has the burden of establishing claim by clear and competent proof in order to overcome the presumption that possession of the land is under the regular title).