Mema Prop.'s, LLC v. Sba Steel II, LLC

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: January 24, 2018
• Docket: 71820
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MEMA PROPERTIES, LLC, A NEVADA No. 71820 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Appellant, vs. SBA STEEL II, LLC, A FLORIDA FILED LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; SBA JAN 2 4 2018 2012 TC ASSETS LLC, F/K/A pcep B OWN R lAct ,...a. t„,,, TOWERCO ASSETS LLC, A CL 0 REV --=,---c-r" DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY , DEPUTY CLEPth BY COMPANY, Respondents.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Mema Properties, LLC, appeals from a district court final judgment and award of fees and costs in a contract action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jerry A. Wiese, Judge. Mema argues that the district court erred by (1) admitting parol evidence in interpreting the two easement agreements after determining the easements were ambiguous, (2) permitting the easement signatories to testify as to their intent to have the September Easement Agreement serve as an amendment to the July Easement Agreement, (3) finding that the July Easement Agreement was a valid contract, and (4) concluding that the September Easement Agreement was an amendment to the July Easement Agreement. Contract interpretation, including determining whether a term is ambiguous, is a matter of law, which this court reviews de novo. See Anvui, LLC v. G.L. Dragon, LLC, 123 Nev. 212, 215, 163 P.3d 405, 407 (2007). "This court will affirm a district court's order if the district court reached the correct result, even if for the wrong reason." Saavedra-

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA it- 634/2- (0) 1947A acttgc, Sandoval v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. 592, 599, 245 P.3d 1198, 1202 -

(2010). We conclude that the terms of the easement agreements unambiguously indicated that the September Easement Agreement was an amendment to the July Easement Agreement. Though the district court improperly found the easement agreements to be ambiguous and admitted parol evidence, it also found the September Easement Agreement to be an amendment to the July Easement Agreement and properly granted summary judgment on that ground. Therefore, we affirm the decision despite it being for the wrong reason.' ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

;1$574 as J. Douglas,

J. Gibbons

J.

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge Early, Sullivan, Wright, Gizer & McRae, LLP Santoro Whitmire Holley, Driggs, Walch, Fine, Wray, Puzey & Thompson Eighth District Court Clerk

1 Consequently, we affirm the grant of attorney fees and costs. Mema's argument that attorney fees awarded as special damages under statute must be specifically pled is irrelevant, as the district court awarded fees pursuant to the September Easement Agreement. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) ]47A TASM.)

idli