Recently I was tasked with drafting the arguments for a motion for attorney fees. Nevada law is full of varying provisions regarding attorney fees, with some provisions inevitably conflicting. In our case, the conflicting provisions were NRCP 68, which dictates the award of attorney fees to a party whose Offer of Judgment is higher than the actual won amount; and NRS 116.3116(12), which dictates attorney fees to the prevailing party in a relevant HOA case, which was arguably us.

So which prevails? This is actually a rather open issue in Nevada. The arguments I made were along the lines of:

1. In a conflict of NRCP and statutes such as NRS 116.3116, the court will defer to statutes for substantive law.
2. Our party prevailed because we also won declaratory relief as a larger benefit than the mere damages amount.
3. That the Nevada courts have recognized that a prevailing party who is to be granted attorney fees in a mandatory attorney fees provision should prevail over a party offering settlement under NRCP 68, where the offer only included monetary relief without equitable relief.
4. That Nevada takes a “harmonize” approach to conflicting rules and statutes, where Nevada courts will attempt to give both effect if possible and that the logical result was to grant us our attorney fees. Note, this is different from the Ninth Circuit’s “direct collision” principle.

The judge sided with us in district court, though hinted this might be an issue for appeal. Thus, a conclusive answer to this question in Nevada may be in the works! ~AP

After having discussions with a professor and seeing the lack of resources regarding business law in the State of Nevada, I have decided to create this blog. This blog is not intended to constitute legal advice and is merely meant to be a resource. Always consult your lawyer first!