In re Estate of Sarge, 122718 NVSC, 73286

Docket Nº:73286
Opinion Judge:PICKERING, J.
Party Name:IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THELMA AILENE SARGE. v. QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION; AND ROSEHILL, LLC, Respondents. ESTATE OF THELMA AILENE SARGE, BY AND THROUGH THE PROPOSED EXECUTRIX, JILL SARGE; AND ESTATE OF EDWIN JOHN SARGE, BY AND THROUGH THE PROPOSED EXECUTRIX, JILL SARGE, Appellants,
Attorney:Tory M. Pankopf Ltd. and Tory M. Pankopf, Reno, for Appellants. McCarthy Holthus LLP and Kristin A. Schuler-Hintz and Thomas N. Beckom, Las Vegas, for Respondent Quality Loan Service Corporation. Walsh, Baker & Rosevear and James M. Walsh and Anthony J. Walsh, Reno, for Respondent Rosehill, LLC.
Judge Panel:BEFORE PICKERING, GIBBONS and HARDESTY, JJ. We concur: Gibbons, J. Hardesty, J.
Case Date:December 27, 2018
Court:Supreme Court of Nevada
 
FREE EXCERPT

134 Nev.Adv.Op. 105

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THELMA AILENE SARGE.

ESTATE OF THELMA AILENE SARGE, BY AND THROUGH THE PROPOSED EXECUTRIX, JILL SARGE; AND ESTATE OF EDWIN JOHN SARGE, BY AND THROUGH THE PROPOSED EXECUTRIX, JILL SARGE, Appellants,

v.

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION; AND ROSEHILL, LLC, Respondents.

No. 73286

Supreme Court of Nevada

December 27, 2018

Jurisdictional prescreening of an appeal from a district court order granting a motion to dismiss in consolidated district court cases. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; James Todd Russell, Judge.

Tory M. Pankopf Ltd. and Tory M. Pankopf, Reno, for Appellants.

McCarthy Holthus LLP and Kristin A. Schuler-Hintz and Thomas N. Beckom, Las Vegas, for Respondent Quality Loan Service Corporation.

Walsh, Baker & Rosevear and James M. Walsh and Anthony J. Walsh, Reno, for Respondent Rosehill, LLC.

BEFORE PICKERING, GIBBONS and HARDESTY, JJ.

OPINION

PICKERING, J.

In Mallin v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 106 Nev. 606, 609, 797 P.2d 978, 980 (1990), this court held that cases consolidated by the district court become a single case for all appellate purposes. By extension, Mallin holds that an order that resolves fewer than all claims in a consolidated action is not appealable as a final judgment, even if the order resolves all of the claims in one of the consolidated cases. Based on foundational problems with Mallin, the history of NRCP 42(a), and the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Hall v. Hall, 584 U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 1118 (2018), we overrule the consolidation rule announced in Mallin and hold that an order finally resolving a constituent consolidated case is immediately appealable as a final judgment even where the other constituent case or cases remain pending. Because the order challenged on appeal here finally resolved one of three consolidated cases, it is appealable and this appeal may proceed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant estates through proposed executrix Jill Sarge (Sarge) filed a complaint for reentry onto real property, asserting that respondent Quality Loan Service Corporation violated NRS 107.080 with respect to its foreclosure of the property.1 On the same day, Sarge also filed petitions to set aside the estates. The district court consolidated the three cases, stating that "all future pleadings and papers shall be filed under the real property case number" corresponding to the complaint for reentry. Later, the district court dismissed the reentry complaint, concluding that the trustee complied with applicable law. This appeal from the dismissal order followed.

The docketing statement suggested that the order dismissing the complaint for reentry was not appealable as a final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(1), because the claims in the consolidated cases appeared to remain pending. See Mallin, 106 Nev. at 609, 797 P.2d at 980. We thus ordered appellants to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. After appellants filed their response, the United States Supreme Court decided Hall v. Hall, holding that an order resolving one of several cases consolidated pursuant to FRCP 42(a) is immediately appealable. 584 U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 1118. We directed the parties to file supplemental briefs discussing the impact of Hall on our interpretation of NRCP 42(a); specifically, we asked the parties to address whether in light of Hall, cases consolidated in the district court should continue to be treated as a single case for appellate purposes.2

Appellants urge us to...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP