Centeno v. Maverick Valley Properties Llc
This text of Centeno v. Maverick Valley Properties Llc (Centeno v. Maverick Valley Properties Llc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The district court concluded that appellants, who are not attorneys, could not bring claims on behalf of the Criollo Family Trust. We agree. A nonlawyer may not represent a trust in this or any other Nevada court. Salman v. Newell, 110 Nev. 1333, 1336, 885 P.2d 607, 608 (1994) (observing that no statute or rule permits a nonlawyer to represent an entity and concluding that an entity cannot proceed in proper person). As appellants' claims were brought for purposes of vindicating the trust's rights, and did not involve the appellants' personal rights, the district court properly dismissed the complaint. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
Hardesty
Parraguirre
2 Because we affirm the district court's dismissal on this basis, we do not address the parties' remaining arguments.
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge Martin Centeno Ricardo Foj as Clark County District Attorney Hutchison & Steffen, LLC Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A
I
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Centeno v. Maverick Valley Properties Llc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/centeno-v-maverick-valley-properties-llc-nev-2013.