From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hagendorf v. Metlife Home Loans

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
May 20, 2015
No. 65392 (Nev. May. 20, 2015)

Opinion

No. 65392

05-20-2015

WAYNE HAGENDORF, AN INDIVIDUAL, Appellant, v. METLIFE HOME LOANS, A DIVISION OF METLIFE BANK, N.A., Respondent.


An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is an appeal from a district court judgment on a jury verdict in a contract and tort action and from a post-judgment order denying a new trial. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Stefany Miley, Judge.

Having considered the parties' arguments and the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict with respect to appellant's claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, and violation of NRS 106.105. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller, 125 Nev. 300, 308, 212 P.3d 318, 324 (2009). In particular, but among other reasons, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude from the evidence presented that respondent complied with the pertinent terms of the parties' contract, declined to cancel appellant's escrow account based on its internal policy that was consistent with the industry standard, and did not publish a false statement that affected appellant's profession. See Mason-McDuffie Real Estate, Inc. v. Villa Fiore Dev., LLC, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 83, 335 P.3d 211, 214 (2014) (indicating that substantial evidence is "that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" (internal quotation omitted)).

Assuming that the jury found a violation of NRS 106.105, such a violation would not have necessarily meant that respondent breached the parties' contract.

Lastly, we conclude that the district court was within its discretion when it determined that appellant had not presented a legally sufficient basis to justify granting appellant's motion for a new trial. See Allstate Ins. Co., 125 Nev. at 308, 212 P.3d at 324. We therefore

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

/s/_________, J.

Parraguirre
/s/_________, J.
Douglas
/s/_________, J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge

Craig A. Hoppe, Settlement Judge

Reich Radcliffe & Kuttler, LLP

Dempsey Roberts & Smith, Ltd.

Weinstein, Pinson & Riley

The Castle Law Group, LLP

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Hagendorf v. Metlife Home Loans

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
May 20, 2015
No. 65392 (Nev. May. 20, 2015)
Case details for

Hagendorf v. Metlife Home Loans

Case Details

Full title:WAYNE HAGENDORF, AN INDIVIDUAL, Appellant, v. METLIFE HOME LOANS, A…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: May 20, 2015

Citations

No. 65392 (Nev. May. 20, 2015)

Citing Cases

Hagendorf v. Nationstar Mortg.

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict and later denied rehearing. Hagendorf v. MetLife …