note that respondents sent appellant before the mediation differed from
the copy that respondents brought to the mediation. Based on the
documents presented, it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to
conclude that respondents possessed appellant's original note. Edelstein,
128 Nev. at , 286 P.3d at 260 (indicating that, absent clear error, a
district court's factual determinations will not be disturbed). Specifically,
the document certifications that respondents sent appellant before the
mediation stated that appellant's original note contained two
endorsements, which matched the two endorsements on the note that
respondents brought to the mediation. This was sufficient for the district
court to conclude that respondents possessed the original note. Id. Thus,
the district court was within its discretion when it declined to hold an
evidentiary hearing regarding the matter. See FMR 21(2) (providing the
district court with the discretion to determine whether an evidentiary
hearing is necessary).
Appellant next contends that respondents failed to produce
the documentation necessary to show that they were entitled to enforce
her note. We disagree. The note produced by respondents included an
endorsement by appellant's original lender made payable to the order of
Countrywide Bank. The note also included a second endorsement in blank
by Countrywide. Once the note was endorsed in blank, it became payable
to bearer, meaning that the entity possessing the note was entitled to
enforce it. See NRS 104.3109(3) ("An instrument payable to an identified
person may become payable to bearer if it is endorsed in blank. . . ."); NRS
104.3205(2) ("When endorsed in blank, an instrument becomes payable to
bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone . ."); see
also Edelstein, 128 Nev. at , 286 P.3d at 261 ("If the note is payable to
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
iYig6111111NEMENIRMINIENINIA I 11MPIV9D...V.V.,94f4AfffW.5:0314AFI
. , '
bearer, that 'indicates that the person in possession of the promise or
order is entitled to payment." (quoting Leyva, 127 Nev. at , 255 P.3d at
1280)). Thus, by demonstrating that they were in possession of appellant's
endorsed-in-blank note, respondents established that the note had been
properly negotiated and that they were entitled to enforce it.'
Accordingly, the district court properly rejected appellant's argument that
respondents failed to produce the documentation necessary to show that
they were entitled to enforce her note. Edelstein, 128 Nev. at , 286
P.3d at 260.
Appellant finally contends that the district court improperly
admitted hearsay evidence. This court has never held that hearsay
evidence cannot be considered in the context of an FMP show-cause
hearing. More importantly, however, the complained-of evidence related
to respondents' willingness to negotiate a loan modification with
appellant, which was not an issue that appellant raised in her petition for
judicial review. 2 Thus, even if the district court had considered this
'To the extent that appellant contends that Bank of America, rather
than ReconTrust, should have demonstrated that it physically possessed
the note, we reject this argument, as ReconTrust was Bank of America's
agent. See Edelstein, 128 Nev. at , 286 P.3d at 261-62 (explaining that,
under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, when an agent of a
secured party is in physical possession of a note, the secured party is
deemed to be in actual possession of the note).
2 We recognize that, once respondents first raised this issue in their
opposition to appellant's petition, appellant did allude to it in her reply.
Cf. Francis v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 127 Nev. n.7, 262 P.3d 705,
715 n.7 (2011) ("[A]rguments raised for the first time in [a] reply brief
need not be considered.").
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
INUM111111
evidence for the truth of the matters asserted, it would have had no
bearing on its decisions regarding the arguments put forth in appellant's
petition for judicial review. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
, J.
Hardesty
Parraguirre
cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 14
Naomi R. Arin
McCarthy & Holthus, LLP/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A
ANMAMPOMMIIMMBR I F74:A.-1, 0*-Z 019131DSZ