Morris v. Imperial Mortg. Co., 15068
| Decision Date | 20 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 15068,15068 |
| Citation | 701 P.2d 741,101 Nev. 266 |
| Parties | Bobby MORRIS, Appellant, v. IMPERIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY, a Nevada Corporation; Tusa Realty, a Nevada Corporation; Edward DeVries; Francine Pulliam; Miriam Kirschner, Vincent Felgar; First American Title Company of Nevada, a Nevada Corporation; Fred Nielsen Family Trust; and Does III through XX, Inclusive, Respondents. Bobby MORRIS, Appellant, v. NIELSEN FAMILY TRUST, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appellant sued respondents, alleging they made false representations upon which he relied about the financial ability and professional status of Lita Grossman, a prospective purchaser of his home. In addition, appellant claims that respondents conspired to induce him to sell to Grossman by concealing and misrepresenting important facts. From judgment in favor of respondents, appellant has appealed.
Appellant first contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain the trial court's ruling. We do not agree. Where there is conflict in the evidence, the trial court's ruling will not be distrubed if there is substantial evidence to support that ruling. Udevco, Inc. v. Wagner, 100 Nev. 185, 188-189, 678 P.2d 679 (1984).
Appellant asserted that he relied on respondents' representations that Grossman was a doctor by profession and financially able to buy his home. We find there was credible evidence to indicate, however: (1) that appellant knew the buyer's earnest money deposit check had not cleared; (2) that prior to close of escrow, appellant's own lawyers told him that the buyer was financially unreliable and that he should not sell; (3) that before escrow closed, buyer defaulted on an agreement to purchase personal property from appellant; (4) that the buyer also defaulted in payment of rent to appellant prior to close of escrow; (5) that respondent Pulliam told appellant prior to close of escrow that Grossman was not a doctor. In view of the foregoing, appellant's contention that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the trial court's ruling is without merit.
Appellant next contends that pursuant to NRS 645B.100(1)(f), respondent Imperial Mortgage Company was required to disclose to appellant the terms and conditions of the secondary financing. We disagree.
NRS 645B.100, in pertinent part, provides:
1. Grounds for refusing to license any person as a mortgage company and grounds for suspending any license are that the applicant or licensee:
(f) Has made any misrepresentations or false...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pandelis Const. Co., Inc. v. Jones-Viking Associates
...only if clearly erroneous, NRCP 52(a); they must be upheld if supported by any substantial evidence, Morris v. Imperial Mortgage Co., 101 Nev. 266, 267-68, 701 P.2d 741, 742 (1985). There was testimony to the effect that the building cost over 1.5 million dollars. There was further testimon......