Hansen v. New Las Vegas Country Club

"To determine whether a challenge is barred by the doctrine of laches, this court considers (1) whether the party inexcusably delayed bringing the challenge, (2) whether the party's inexcusable delay constitutes acquiescence to the condition the party is challenging, and (3) whether the inexcusable delay was prejudicial to others." Miller v. Burk, 124 Nev. 579, 598, 188 P.3d 1112, 1125 (2008). In this case, respondent has offered varying forms of non- or partial-voting memberships during almost the entire course of its existence. Appellants have been members of respondent for between 12 and 23 years and have all served on respondent's Board of Directors. Given appellants' long time membership and respondent's long history of offering non-voting memberships, we conclude that the district court did not err when it found that appellants' challenge to the non-voting aspect of the 2013 bylaw is barred by laches. Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005) (reviewing summary judgment de novo); Carson City v. Price, 113 Nev. 409, 412, 934 P.2d 1042, 1043 (1997) ("The condition of the party asserting laches must become so changed that the party cannot be restored to its former state." (quoting Home Say. Ass'n v. Bigelow, 105 Nev. 494, 496, 779 P.2d 85, 86 (1989))). Appellants challenged two aspects of the 2013 bylaw, however. The district court made no finding, and respondent made no argument, that laches bars appellants from asserting that the 2013 bylaw violates Article II of respondent's articles of incorporation, which requires respondent to be a non-public club. Accordingly, we conclude that no evidence in the record before us supports the district court's summary judgment on the non-public issue based on laches. Similarly, the district court did not make any findings that estoppel applies to appellants'

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

argument that the 2013 bylaw violates the non-public club provisions of the articles of incorporation. Therefore, we reverse the district court's summary judgment as to this issue. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMAND this matter to the district court for further proceedings.

a.th J. Parraguirre

48 J. Douglas

C tit Cherry J.

cc: Hon. Susan Scann, District Judge Ara H Shirinian, Settlement Judge Eglet Prince Christiansen Law Offices Law Offices of John Benedict Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) I94Th