IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ISELLA C. GOMEZ DE HINES, No. 79816
Appellant,
vs.
RELS VALUATION; AND TIFFANY
DIAZ D/B/A TMD APPRAISALS, FILED
Res • ondents.
NOV 1 3 2020
BP.OT.IN
REME COURT
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court final judgment following
a bench trial in a tort action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County;
Gloria Sturman, Judge.'
In Boesiger v. Desert Appraisals LLC,
(2019), we held that a homeowner is not an intended third-party beneficiary to an appraisal conducted for a lender. Consistent with
Boesiger, the district court correctly determined that a substantively
identical inspection and appraisal in this case did not confer third-party
'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument
is not warranted in this appeal.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
t 947A 46109 20 — c1Çf,TO
beneficiary status on appellant. Accordingly, the district court correctly
granted respondents NRCP 52(c) motion.2 We therefore
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
.12‘"statel , J.
Parraguirre
/ ACT-A , J.
Hardesty
, J.
Cadish
cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge
Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge
Crosby & Fox, LLC
Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
2Appellant does not dispute respondents' contention that resolution of
this issue is dispositive of the other issues raised on appeal, including
whether expert testimony was necessary to establish respondents' standard
of care regarding the inspection. We therefore decline to address that issue.
See First Nat'l Bank of Neu. v. Ron Rudin Realty Co.,
(2009) (treating a party's failure to respond to an
argument as a concession that the argument is meritorious).
SUPREME COURT
oç
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A OOP
