Court Opinion

ID: 9551804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:59:35.184221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:43.301236
License: Public Domain

Thompson, J.,
with whom Batjer, J.,
concurs, dissenting:
It is undisputed that Charles Cardinal, a general partner, acquired knowledge of his brother’s forgery in early 1965. Accordingly, the district court ruled, as a matter of law, that 21 months was an unreasonable time to wait before filing suit and that the plaintiffs must be deemed to have ratified the forgery. We cannot fault his decision on this point. The defendants acted in good faith throughout and are innocent of wrongdoing. The criminal act was that of a partner of the plaintiffs who here seek relief. It seems to us that the burden was on them to explain or excuse their delay in commencing suit [NRCP 56(e); Adamson v. Bowker, 85 Nev. 115, 450 P.2d 796 (1969); Tobler and Oliver v. Bd. Trustees, 84 Nev. 438, 442 P.2d 904 (1968)] or suffer possible defeat when faced with a motion for summary judgment. No explanation or *230excuse was offered to the court for its evaluation. The plaintiffs alone possessed that knowledge. We would affirm.