Dain v. Federal National Mortgage ( 2014 )

 appellant contends that the district court should have dismissed
respondent's petition for judicial review on the ground that it was not
timely filed. Based on the conflicting evidence regarding when respondent
actually received the Mediator's Statement, it was not clearly erroneous
for the district court to find that respondent's petition was timely filed.
Edelstein, 128 Nev. at , 286 P.3d at 260 (indicating that, absent clear
error, a district court's factual determinations will not be disturbed); id. at
n.4, 286 P.3d at 254 n.4 (recognizing that the time frame for
petitioning for judicial review under FMR 21(2) (2011) begins running
upon receipt of the Mediator's Statement).
Appellant next contends that the district court erred in
determining that respondent produced proper certifications for the
endorsements on appellant's promissory note. We disagree. Because
respondent certified that the promissory note in its possession was the
original, this certification was also sufficient to certify that the
endorsements on the note were the originals. 2 Edelstein, 128 Nev. at ,
...continued
and that respondent's chain of title is therefore incomplete. Because this
argument was not made in district court, we decline to consider it on
appeal. Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983
(1981).
2 We need not consider in this case whether a separate certification
would be necessary for an endorsement contained on an allonge. As
respondent accurately argued at the show-cause hearing, in light of the
two endorsements on the note, the allonge was not necessary to establish
respondent's status as the note holder. Leyva v. Nat'l Default Servicing
Corp., 127 Nev. „ 255 P.3d 1275,1279-80 (2011) (recognizing that a
party in possession of a properly negotiated, endorsed-in-blank promissory
note is the note holder and is entitled to enforce the note).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
286 P.3d at 260 (reviewing a district court's legal conclusions de novo); cf.
Einhorn v. BAG Home Loans Servicing, LP, 128 Nev. , , 290 P.3d
249, 254 (2012) ("[S]trict compliance does not mean absurd compliance.").
Appellant lastly contends that respondent's document
certifications failed to comply with NRS 240.1655(2). See FMR 11(4)
(2011) (requiring a certification to comply with subsection 2 of NRS
240.1655). Again, we disagree. Respondent's certifications did not need to
comply with sub-subsection (c) of NRS 240.1655(2) when the notarial
officer's only function was to administer an oath under sub-subsection (b).
As there was no factual or legal error on the district court's
part, Edelstein, 128 Nev. at , 286 P.3d at 260, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Pieikuu: J.
Piçring
Parraguirrs
Ala ' J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge
Tory M. Pankopf
McCarthy & Holthus, LLP/Las Vegas
McCarthy & Holthus LLP/Reno
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A Atito