Document Type

Case Summary

Publication Date

1-26-2017

Case Synopsis

The Court held that under NRCP 41(e) a complaint in intervention is a part of an original action, and thus, the district court’s dismissal of appellant’s complaint was mandatory. However, the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice because the district court mischaracterized NRS 116.3116(6) as a statute of limitations when it only limits the amount of actionable unpaid HOA assessments. Finally, the Court found that appellant’s subsequent action would not be barred by statute of limitations.

Download

Share

COinS