Schwedt v. 961 Matley Props.

• Docket Number: 88931-COA
• Decision Date: 01 October 2025
• Citation: Schwedt v. 961 Matley Props., 88931-COA (Nev. App. Oct 01, 2025)
• Parties: ERIC SCHWEDT, D/B/A ERIC SCHWEDT STONE & MASONRY; AND ERIC SCHWEDT CONSTRUCTION, INC, Appellants, v. 961 MATLEY PROPERTIES, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Respondent.
• Court: Nevada Court of Appeals

1

ERIC SCHWEDT, D/B/A ERIC SCHWEDT STONE & MASONRY; AND ERIC SCHWEDT CONSTRUCTION, INC, Appellants,
v.
961 MATLEY PROPERTIES, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 88931-COA

Court of Appeals of Nevada

October 1, 2025

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Bulla, C.J.

Eric Schwedt, d/b/a Eric Schwedt Stone &Masonry, and Eric Schwedt Construction, Inc., appeal from post-judgment orders granting attorney fees and denying a motion for reconsideration. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Kathleen A. Sigurdson, Judge.

Respondent 961 Matley Properties, LLC (Matley), sued Eric Schwedt for breach of a personal guaranty of a lease. Judgment was entered against Schwedt personally in July 2019 in the amount of $70,578.59. However, the judgment remained unsatisfied. In July 2020, Matley filed the underlying complaint for declaratory relief seeking to obtain a judicial declaration that Schwedt's two business entities, Eric Schwedt Stone &Masonry and Eric Schwedt Construction, Inc. (collectively appellants), are alter egos of Eric Schwedt. The complaint included a request for attorney fees pursuant to an attorney fees clause contained in the Guaranty of Lease which stated "[i]n the event of any action by said landlord against Guarantor, hereunder, to enforce the obligation of the Guarantor

2

hereunder, the unsuccessful party in such action shall pay the prevailing party therein a reasonable attorney's fee which can be fixed by the Court."

Thereafter, the district court held a bench trial in the matter and subsequently entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment in January 2023. The court ultimately determined that "Matley Properties is entitled to a judgment for declaratory relief that Mr. Schwedt is the alter ego of the Defendants" and rendered judgment in favor of Matley.^[1]

Subsequently, Matley filed a motion for attorney fees, under NRS 18.010(1), which provides for the recovery of attorney fees pursuant to an agreement. Matley argued that it was entitled to an award of fees based on the attorney fees provision contained in the Guaranty of Lease and asserted that it prevailed on its claim for declaratory relief. Appellants opposed the motion and argued that Matley's action did not assist in the enforcement of the outstanding judgment against Schwedt and that the court's grant of declaratory relief did not attach liability for Matley's judgment to appellants. Accordingly, appellants argued that Matley was unsuccessful in the action and thus could not be the prevailing party. The district court later entered an order granting Matley's motion for attorney fees. In so doing, the court found that it was indisputable that Matley was the prevailing party in the action, as noted in the district court's findings of

3

fact, conclusions of law, and judgment. The court separately issued an order awarding Matley attorney fees in the amount of $28,797.50. Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied. This appeal followed.

On appeal, appellants assert that the district court abused its discretion in awarding Matley attorney fees. Appellants assert that Matley failed to obtain a judgment that would allow Matley to enforce the obligation of Eric Schwedt, individually, against them, and thus, Matley could not be the prevailing party. Conversely, Matley asserts the district court properly awarded it fees under NRS 18.010(1) as the prevailing party because it succeeded in obtaining a declaratory judgment that appellants and Schwedt are alter egos of each other.

The district court may only award attorney fees where a statute, rule, or contract allows it, and we review such an award for an abuse of discretion.Albios v. Horizon Cmtys., Inc.,122 Nev. 409, 417, 132 P.3d 1022, 1027-28 (2006); see alsoNRS 18.010(1) ("The compensation of an attorney and counselor for his or her services is governed by agreement, express or implied, which is not restrained by law."). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court's decision is not supported by substantial evidence,"Otak Nev., LLC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 129 Nev. 799, 805, 312 P.3d 491, 496 (2013), "which is evidence that a reasonable person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment,"Ellis v. Carucci,123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007). Moreover, "[t]he objective in interpreting an attorney fees provision, as with all contracts, is to discern the intent of the contracting parties," and "the...