Lytle v. Rosemere Estates Property Owners Assoc. C/W 60657 ( 2015 )

they suffered monetary damages for their remaining claims to be viable. Accordingly, we vacate the district court's summary judgment.' In light of our conclusion that summary judgment was improperly granted, we vacate the district court's June 5, 2012, order awarding attorney fees, costs, and damages to Rosemere, as Rosemere at this point is not the prevailing party. For the same reasons, we vacate the district court's August 13, 2012, order awarding supplemental attorney fees that the Lytles are challenging in Docket No. 61308. Consistent with the foregoing, we ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order. 2 Saitta Gibbons m79244 , J. 1 We have considered Rosemere's alternative arguments as to why the Lytles' claims fail on their merits. Based on the current record, we are unable to determine that all aspects of the Lytles' claims would fail as a matter of law. 2 To the extent that our resolution of these appeals may appear inconsistent with our resolution of the appeal in Docket No. 63942, we note that our resolution of these appeals was premised in part on the Lytles' stipulation as to the amended CC&Rs' validity. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A Ca Tip cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge Persi J. Mishel, Settlement Judge Sterling Law, LLC Leach Johnson Song & Gruchow Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e r.:Suga