Opinion
No. 55999.
11-21-2011
William J. WILKINS; and Alvin P. Kramer, Appellants, v. Denise TOWNSEND, Respondent.
Alvin P. Kramer William J. Wilkins Robert A. Grayson
Alvin P. Kramer
William J. Wilkins
Robert A. Grayson
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is a proper person appeal from a district court judgment following a bench trial in a real property contract action. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; Noel E. Manoukian, Senior Judge.
Having reviewed the proper person appeal statements and the record on appeal, we affirm the district court's judgment. Substantial evidence supports the district court's findings of fact at issue in this matter; thus, we will not disturb them on appeal. Martinez v. Maruszczak, 123 Nev. 433, 438–39, 168 P.3d 720, 724 (2007) ; Dugan v. Gotsopoulos, 117 Nev. 285, 288–89, 22 P.3d 205, 207–08 (2001) (stating that a party is permitted to testify as to the value of his or her real property, allowed to recover loss of use damages, and may testify as to the amount of loss of use damages without expert testimony); Mort Wallin v. Commercial Cabinet, 105 Nev. 855, 857, 784 P.2d 954, 955 (1989) (recognizing that proof of damages does not require “mathematical exactitude” and that “some uncertainty in the amount is allowed”); see also Winchell v. Schiff, 124 Nev. 938, 944, 193 P.3d 946, 950 (2008) (defining substantial evidence as “evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion”) (internal quotation omitted).
Appellants also challenge the failure of the district court to grant their demand for a jury trial. We affirm the district court's denial of a jury trial, as the demand for a jury trial was untimely. NRCP 38(b) ; Hardy v. First Nat'l Bank of Nev., 86 Nev. 921, 922–23, 478 P.2d 581, 582 (1970). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
We have considered appellants' other arguments raised on appeal and conclude that they lack merit.
--------