Thomas and Rebecca McCrary (“McCrary”) appealed from a post-verdict district court order awarding attorney fees based upon the cost shifting provisions of NRCP 68 and NRS 17.115. Dominic Bianco (“Bianco”) cross-appealed from the denial of its motion for partial satisfaction of judgment. McCrary unsuccessfully argued that the district court erred in its failure to consider pre-offer attorney fees and costs as part of its determination of the total judgment for cost-shifting purposes. McCrary successfully argued that the district court erred in not including pre-offer prejudgment interest in its comparison between the total amount awarded and the offer of judgment, for cost-shifting purposes. Bianco unsuccessfully argued that he should receive an offset under the repair contract. McCrary unsuccessfully argued that the offer of judgment was invalid for lack of service and failure to file in a timely manner. The district court’s decision was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Kasiske, Eunice, "Summary of McCrary v. Bianco, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 10" (2006). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 550.