Scoble v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ( 2013 )

 In an appeal from a district court order granting or denying
judicial review in an FMP matter, this court defers to the district court's
factual determinations and reviews de novo the district court's legal
determinations. Edelstein v. Bank of N.Y Mellon, 128 Nev. , , 286
P.3d 249, 260 (2012). To obtain an FMP certificate, a deed of trust
beneficiary must, among other things, bring the required documents,
including each assignment of the deed of trust. NRS 107.086(4); Leyva v.
Nat'l Default Servicing Corp., 127 Nev. , 255 P.3d 1275, 1278-79
(2011).
On appeal, appellant contends that the district court abused
its discretion by concluding that an FMP certificate could issue after
respondents paid their sanctions. We agree. 2 See Holt v. Reg'l Trustee
Servs. Corp., 127 Nev. , 266 P.3d 602, 607 (2011) ("[D]enial of an
2 0n appeal, respondents argue that appellant improperly raised her
arguments regarding the assignments for the first time in her reply to
respondents' opposition to the petition for judicial review and that we
should reverse the district court's finding of noncompliance on this basis
alone. We decline to do so, as respondents did not point out this
procedural impropriety to the district court during either of the hearings,
and the district court thereafter considered the arguments on their merits.
Cf. Arnold v. Kip, 123 Nev. 410, 416-17, 168 P.3d 1050, 1054 (2007)
(treating an argument raised for the first time in a district court motion
for reconsideration as properly part of the appellate record when the
district court proceeded to entertain the argument on its merits).
We likewise decline to review the merits of the district court's
underlying determination that respondents failed to produce an
assignment from Wells Fargo to Wachovia, as respondents have not
provided any meaningful argument on appeal to this effect. Edwards v.
Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38
(2006) (noting that this court need not consider an issue when a party fails
to provide cogent argument supported by salient authority).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
FMP certificate follows automatically from a finding the statutory FMP
requirements have been shirked. . . . [A] district court abuses its
discretion if it does not order the FMP certificate withheld for
noncompliance with the FMP requirements." (citations omitted)).
Accordingly, we reverse the district court's order denying appellant's
petition for judicial review insofar as it permitted an FMP certificate to be
issued, and we remand this case for further proceedings consistent with
this order. 3
It is so ORDERED.
b.ut
Parraguirre
3 Inlight of our disposition, we need not consider appellant's
alternate argument regarding Wells Fargo's alleged lack of authority.
Moreover, to the extent that respondents ask for a reversal of the district
court's imposition of monetary sanctions, we are unable to do so, as
respondents did not file a cross-appeal. Ford v. Showboat Operating Co.,
110 Nev. 752, 755, 877 P.2d 546, 548 (1994) (IA] respondent who seeks to
alter the rights of the parties under a judgment must file a notice of cross-
appeal.").
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge
Keith J. Tierney
Nevada Legal Services/Las Vegas
Nevada Legal Services/Reno
Tiffany & Bosco, P. A.
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A