Leven v. Wheatherstone Condominium Corp., Inc., 19471

Decision Date16 May 1990
Docket NumberNo. 19471,19471
PartiesRobert and Sandy LEVEN and Harold and Reta Rome, Appellants, v. WHEATHERSTONE CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, INC., Judy Fenner, Old West Realty-Broker, and California Federal Savings and Loan, Respondents.
CourtNevada Supreme Court

Edward G. Marshall, Las Vegas, for appellants.

Beckley, Singleton, DeLanoy, Jemison & List and Daniel F. Polsenberg, Las Vegas, for respondents Wheatherstone, Fenner and Old West Realty.

Deaner, Deaner & Scann, Las Vegas, for respondent California Federal Sav. and Loan.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In the action below, the district court granted summary judgment to respondents. We conclude genuine issues of fact remain for trial and therefore reverse the judgment of the district court.

THE FACTS

Appellants are the owners of two condominium units in the Wheatherstone Condominium Complex (Complex). The respondents, Wheatherstone Condominium Corporation, Inc. (Wheatherstone), Judy Fenner, Old West Realty-Broker, and California Federal Savings and Loan (Cal Fed) are associated with the management, finances, and development of the Complex.

On February 17, 1981, Bronze Construction Co., Inc., (Bronze), as owner and developer of the Complex, filed the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC & R's) for the Complex with the Clark County Recorder. The CC & R's set out the basic rights and obligations of each condominium owner. In addition, the CC & R's declared that a vote of 75% of the owners was needed to amend the CC & R's. They also added that each family unit would be responsible for 1% of the common assessments. Finally, the CC & R's erroneously stated 100 units had already been built at the Complex.

On January 19, 1983, Bronze became delinquent on its construction loan and Family Savings, now Cal Fed, foreclosed. At the time of foreclosure, only 60 units had been built. After foreclosure, Cal Fed sold the undeveloped land to Charles McHaffie dba C & H Investment. A dispute arose concerning whether Cal Fed and its grantees should pay common assessments for the undeveloped land during the period when they owned the land prior to development. This previously undeveloped land has now been fully developed, and the owners of units on this land have been paying common assessments since completion.

On December 13, 1984, a vote of the family unit owners was taken to amend the CC & R's. The proposed amendment provided that an owner or builder of an unfinished unit would not be responsible to pay common assessments until the unit was ready for occupancy. The ballot stated that a "yes" vote would be recorded if the The parties dispute the final tally of this vote. In the vote, there were 28 "yes" votes, 10 "no" votes and 22 "no responses." Appellants insist the vote did not pass by the required 75% of the owners and a quorum was not present for the vote. Respondents Wheatherstone and Fenner assert the measure passed by a 79% margin. Cal Fed maintains the measure passed with 50 "yes" votes and 10 "no" votes, or 83.33%.

ballot was not received by a certain date. Nowhere in the CC & R's does it declare that in future voting, a "no response" could be counted as a "yes" vote.

On March 12, 1986, appellants filed suit against respondents asserting that the amendment to the CC & R's was invalid. On January 22, 1987, the district court entered a decision granting summary judgment to respondents. In the decision, the district court made no specific findings concerning the propriety of the amendment to the CC & R's. Instead, the district court interpreted the original CC & R's to conclude that only the owners of the 60 developed units should be subject to common assessments.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Coty v. Washoe County
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • September 3, 1992
    ...Federal Savings v. Washoe County, 106 Nev. 869, 871, 802 P.2d 1270, 1272 (1990) (citing NRCP 56(c); Leven v. Wheatherstone Condominium Corp., 106 Nev. 307, 309, 791 P.2d 450, 451 (1990)). In Frye v. Clark County, 97 Nev. 632, 637 P.2d 1215 (1981), we held that a fire department is not gener......
  • FCH1, LLC v. Rodriguez
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • October 2, 2014
    ...ultimate merits. We therefore grant the Palms' request to have this case reassigned if remanded. See Leven v. Wheatherstone Condo. Corp., Inc., 106 Nev. 307, 310, 791 P.2d 450, 451 (1990).For these reasons, we reverse and remand for reassignment and a new trial consistent with this opinion.......
  • Nevada State Bank v. Jamison Family Partnership, 20468
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • November 28, 1990
    ...issues of fact to be resolved, and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. NRCP 56(c); Leven v. Wheatherstone Condominium Corp., 106 Nev. 307, 791 P.2d 450, 451 (1990). A litigant has the right to a trial where there remains the slightest doubt as to remaining issues of fact. ......
  • FCH1, LLC v. Rodriguez
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • June 5, 2014
    ...ultimate merits. We therefore grant the Palms' request to have this case reassigned if remanded. See Leven v. Wheatherstone Condo. Corp., Inc., 106 Nev. 307, 310, 791 P.2d 450, 451 (1990). For these reasons, we reverse and remand for reassignment and a new trial consistent with this opinion......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT