Cox v. King

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: June 24, 2015
• Docket: 61682
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

acre-feet in favor of the Chesnoffs. The district court erred in applying NRS 533.382 retroactively. See 1995 Nev. Stat., ch. 265, § 13, at 439 ("The provisions of sections 2, 5 and 6 of this act are not applicable to a conveyance of a water right, permit, certificate or application which is completed before October 1, 1995.")). Nevertheless, we conclude that the district court did not err in reaching its ultimate outcome because the Noordas' original water appropriation application only designated the Chesnoffs' property as the intended place of use and neither the State Engineer's unilateral actions nor the unenforceable water well association agreement (which was not notarized and failed to specify the property interest on its face) altered that designation. 1 See Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. 592, 599, 245 P.3d 1198, 1202 (2010) ("This court will affirm a district court's order if the district court reached the correct result, even if for the wrong reason."). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J.

, J.

1 We have considered the parties remaining arguments, and conclude that they are without merit.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge H. Bruce Cox Attorney General/Carson City Holley, Driggs, Walch, Puzey & Thompson/Las Vegas Gregory J. Walch Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A age.