De Hines Vs. Rels Valuation

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ISELLA C. GOMEZ DE HINES, No. 79816 Appellant, vs. RELS VALUATION; AND TIFFANY DIAZ D/B/A TMD APPRAISALS, FILED Res • ondents. NOV 1 3 2020 BP.OT.IN REME COURT

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is an appeal from a district court final judgment following a bench trial in a tort action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Gloria Sturman, Judge.' In Boesiger v. Desert Appraisals LLC, 135 Nev. 192, 197, 444 P.3d 436, 441 (2019), we held that a homeowner is not an intended third- party beneficiary to an appraisal conducted for a lender. Consistent with Boesiger, the district court correctly determined that a substantively identical inspection and appraisal in this case did not confer third-party

'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted in this appeal.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

t 947A 46109 20 — c1Çf,TO

beneficiary status on appellant. Accordingly, the district court correctly granted respondents NRCP 52(c) motion.2 We therefore ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

.12‘"statel , J. Parraguirre

/ ACT-A , J. Hardesty

, J. Cadish

cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge Crosby & Fox, LLC Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

2Appellant does not dispute respondents' contention that resolution of this issue is dispositive of the other issues raised on appeal, including whether expert testimony was necessary to establish respondents' standard of care regarding the inspection. We therefore decline to address that issue. See First Nat'l Bank of Neu. v. Ron Rudin Realty Co., 97 Nev. 20, 24, 623 P.2d 558, 560 (1981) (declining to reach a subsequent issue when a primary issue is dispositive); see also Ozawa v. Vision Airlines, Inc., 125 Nev. 556, 563, 216 P.3d 788, 793 (2009) (treating a party's failure to respond to an argument as a concession that the argument is meritorious).

SUPREME COURT oç NEVADA 2 (0) I947A OOP