Opinion ID: 2498865
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The short-sale agreement is an enforceable settlement agreement

Text: The Joneses argue that the short-sale agreement with SunTrust is not enforceable because the agreement lacks consideration and SunTrust failed to comply with NRS 107.086 and the FMRs. When reviewing whether the parties to a foreclosure mediation reached an enforceable settlement agreement, we must defer to the district court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous or not based on substantial evidence. May v. Anderson, 121 Nev. 668, 672-73, 119 P.3d 1254, 1257 (2005). Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Whitemaine v. Aniskovich, 124 Nev. 302, 308, 183 P.3d 137, 141 (2008). We review a district court's decision regarding the imposition of sanctions for a party's participation in the Foreclosure Mediation Program under an abuse of discretion standard. Pasillas v. HSBC Bank USA, 127 Nev. ___, ___, 255 P.3d 1281, 1286 (2011). A settlement agreement is a contract, and thus, must be supported by consideration in order to be enforceable. May, 121 Nev. at 672, 119 P.3d at 1257. Consideration is the exchange of a promise or performance, bargained for by the parties. Pink v. Busch, 100 Nev. 684, 688, 691 P.2d 456, 459 (1984) (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 71(1), (2) (1981)). If the settlement agreement is reduced to a writing signed by the party that it is being enforced against, or by his or her attorney, then it is enforceable under DCR 16. [4] See Resnick v. Valente, 97 Nev. 615, 616-17, 637 P.2d 1205, 1206 (1981) (reversing a district court's enforcement of a settlement agreement when the agreement was not reduced to a signed writing or entered in the court minutes following a stipulation). Substantial evidence supports the district court's finding that the mediator's statement containing the written short-sale terms, signed by all parties, including Mr. Jones and the attorney representing the Joneses, constitutes an enforceable settlement agreement. First, the short-sale agreement was supported by consideration. In exchange for the Joneses' agreement to a short sale, SunTrust agreed to suspend the foreclosure proceedings against the Joneses for two months. If the short sale was not accomplished within the two-month period, SunTrust could proceed with the foreclosure, but the Joneses maintained the right to conduct a short sale until the time of the foreclosure sale. Second, since we conclude that the district court properly found that the settlement agreement was enforceable, and the terms of the agreement allowed SunTrust to seek a certificate and pursue foreclosure if the short sale was not accomplished within a specified time, the Joneses' claim that the foreclosure cannot proceed based on alleged violations of NRS 107.086 and the FMRs lacks merit. The parties expressly agreed to the foreclosure in the event that the short sale did not take place. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to impose sanctions against SunTrust. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. [5] We concur: SAITTA, C.J., DOUGLAS, CHERRY, PICKERING HARDESTY and PARRAGUIRRE, JJ.