Court Opinion

ID: 9796283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:54:17.466205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:49:44.913164
License: Public Domain

Gibbons, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur with the majority regarding the affirmance of the order granting summary judgment as to the emotional distress claims. I also concur with the majority that the award of attorney fees under NRS 18.010(2)(b) was improper in that the claims of the appellants William (now deceased) and Christine Kahn and the Kahn Family Trust (the Kahns) were based upon reasonable grounds.
However, I dissent regarding the claims of the Kahns for malpractice. The district court found that there are no other defenses to the enforcement of the settlement agreement and that there was no legal reason for not enforcing the settlement agreement. I agree. The Kahns did not appeal the judgment of the district court granting Eric Kahn’s counter-motion for specific performance of the settlement agreement and the finding that the settlement agreement was a binding and enforceable contract. Therefore, there is no genuine issue of material fact that precluded the district court from granting summary judgment under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.