290 P.3d 265 (Nev. 2012), 57656, Casey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
|Citation:||290 P.3d 265, 128 Nev. Adv. Op. 64|
|Opinion Judge:||PICKERING, J.|
|Party Name:||Inger CASEY, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Respondent.|
|Attorney:||Smith & Harmer, Ltd., and Julian C. Smith Jr. and Joylyn Harmer, Carson City, for Appellant. Lewis & Roca LLP and Paul A. Matteoni and Scott S. Hoffmann, Reno, for Respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||Before SAITTA, PICKERING and HARDESTY, JJ. We concur: SAITTA and HARDESTY, JJ.|
|Case Date:||December 13, 2012|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Nevada|
Nevada has adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act of 2000, codified in NRS 38.206 to 38.248(UAA). See NRS 38.206; 2001 Nev. Stat., ch. 280, §§ 1-44, at 1274-87. The UAA provides for judicial review and enforcement of arbitration awards. It provides that the winning party can move the district court for an order confirming the award, NRS 38.239, and gives the losing party 90 days from the date of notice of an adverse arbitration award to move the district court to vacate, modify, or correct the award. NRS 38.241(2); NRS 38.242(1).
In this case, the district court summarily granted the motion of respondent Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to confirm its arbitration award against appellant Inger Casey. It did so without giving Casey the opportunity to be heard in opposition to the motion to confirm, even though the 90-day period for Casey to move to vacate, modify, or correct the award had yet to run. Because this was error, we reverse and remand.
This dispute began when Casey deposited four checks made payable to " Inger Casey, Pat & Linda Dempsey" into her Wells Fargo checking account. The Dempseys did not endorse the checks. After the issuer questioned the missing endorsements, Wells Fargo opened a fraud investigation and froze the funds. Litigation followed, including a counterclaim bye Casey against Wells Fargo alleging breach of contract and violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693 to 1693r, inclusive. Eventually, the matter was submitted to arbitration through the American Arbitration Association.
After a three-day hearing, the arbitrator issued a written award in Wells Fargo's favor. Casey filed a motion with the arbitrator to modify the award, which he denied. Wells Fargo then moved the district court for an order confirming the arbitration award and for entry of judgment on it. Within hours, the district court granted Wells Fargo's motion. Casey objected by filing a motion to strike the district court's confirmation order and judgment, arguing that she should have been afforded the opportunity to oppose the motion to confirm and/or to file a competing motion to vacate, modify, or correct the award. The district court denied Casey's motion to strike, concluding that NRS 38.239 mandates confirmation unless a motion to vacate, modify, or correct the award is already on file before the motion to confirm is filed. Casey appeals.1
This court reviews de novo a district court's legal...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP