Hansen v. New Las Vegas Country Club

 "To determine whether a challenge is barred by the doctrine of
laches, this court considers (1) whether the party inexcusably delayed
bringing the challenge, (2) whether the party's inexcusable delay
constitutes acquiescence to the condition the party is challenging, and (3)
whether the inexcusable delay was prejudicial to others." Miller v. Burk,
124 Nev. 579, 598, 188 P.3d 1112, 1125 (2008). In this case, respondent
has offered varying forms of non- or partial-voting memberships during
almost the entire course of its existence. Appellants have been members
of respondent for between 12 and 23 years and have all served on
respondent's Board of Directors. Given appellants' long time membership
and respondent's long history of offering non-voting memberships, we
conclude that the district court did not err when it found that appellants'
challenge to the non-voting aspect of the 2013 bylaw is barred by laches.
Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005)
(reviewing summary judgment de novo); Carson City v. Price, 113 Nev.
409, 412, 934 P.2d 1042, 1043 (1997) ("The condition of the party
asserting laches must become so changed that the party cannot be
restored to its former state." (quoting Home Say. Ass'n v. Bigelow, 105
Nev. 494, 496, 779 P.2d 85, 86 (1989))).
Appellants challenged two aspects of the 2013 bylaw, however.
The district court made no finding, and respondent made no argument,
that laches bars appellants from asserting that the 2013 bylaw violates
Article II of respondent's articles of incorporation, which requires
respondent to be a non-public club. Accordingly, we conclude that no
evidence in the record before us supports the district court's summary
judgment on the non-public issue based on laches. Similarly, the district
court did not make any findings that estoppel applies to appellants'
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
argument that the 2013 bylaw violates the non-public club provisions of
the articles of incorporation. Therefore, we reverse the district court's
summary judgment as to this issue. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED IN
PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMAND this matter to the
district court for further proceedings.
a.th J.
Parraguirre
48 J.
Douglas
C tit
Cherry
J.
cc: Hon. Susan Scann, District Judge
Ara H Shirinian, Settlement Judge
Eglet Prince
Christiansen Law Offices
Law Offices of John Benedict
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I94Th