Opinion ID: 2453733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Respondents failed to meet the mediation program's statutory requirements

Text: The Pasillases argue that respondents failed to meet the program's requirements the document requirement because respondents failed to bring a complete mortgage note and failed to provide assignments of the note and deed of trust, and the loan modification authority requirement because they failed to have someone present at the mediation with the authority to modify the loan. We agree. The scope and meaning of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo. Arguello v. Sunset Station, Inc., 127 Nev. ___, 252 P.3d 206 (2011). Court rules are also subject to de novo review. Moon v. McDonald, Carano & Wilson, LLP, 126 Nev. ___, ___, 245 P.3d 1138, 1139 (2010). When the language in a provision is clear and unambiguous, this court gives `effect to that meaning and will not consider outside sources beyond that statute.' City of Reno v. Citizens for Cold Springs, 126 Nev. 27, ___, 236 P.3d 10, 16 (2010) (quoting NAIW v. Nevada Self-Insurers Association, 126 Nev. 7, ___, 225 P.3d 1265, 1271 (2010)). Both NRS 107.086 and the FMRs use the word shall or must when listing the actions required of parties to a foreclosure mediation. Use of the word shall in both the statutory language and the FMRs indicates a duty on the part of the beneficiary, and this court has stated that `shall' is mandatory unless the statute demands a different construction to carry out the clear intent of the legislature. S.N.E.A. v. Daines, 108 Nev. 15, 19, 824 P.2d 276, 278 (1992). Additionally, Black's Law Dictionary defines shall as meaning imperative or mandatory .... inconsistent with a concept of discretion. 1375 (6th ed. 1990). And as it is used here, must is a synonym of shall. We conclude that NRS 107.086(4) and (5) and FMR 5(7)(a) clearly and unambiguously mandate that the beneficiary of the deed of trust or its representative (1) attend the mediation, (2) mediate in good faith, (3) provide the required documents, and (4) have a person present with authority to modify the loan or access to such a person. Here, the mediator's statement and his addendum to that statement, which were provided to the district court in the Pasillases' petition for judicial review, clearly set out respondents' failure to bring the required documents to the mediation and to have someone present with authority to modify the loan. Additionally, respondents do not dispute that they failed to bring all the required documents to the mediation. [9] Although respondents argue on appeal that their counsel at the mediation had the requisite authority and/or access to a person with the authority to modify the loan, they do not controvert the mediator's statement that their counsel claimed at the mediation that additional investor approval was needed in order to modify the loan. The record before the district court demonstrates that respondents failed to meet the statutory requirements. Nonetheless, respondents argue that the district court's conclusion that sanctions were unwarranted did not constitute an abuse of discretion because, despite the failures noted above, they mediated to resolve the foreclosure in good faith. We disagree.