DONNELL RICHARDS, Appellant, v. WILHELMINA S. LINDQUIST, RENEE L. KENNEDY, aka RENEE L. WALDO, and CHARLES ALDABE, aka CHARLES D. ALDABE, Respondents; RENO ESCROW COMPANY, a Nevada Corporation, DONNELL RICHARDS, Appellants, v. WILHELMINA S. LINDQUIST, RENEE L. KENNEDY, et al., Respondents. WILHELMINA S. LINDQUIST and RENEE L. KENNEDY, H. DALE MURPHY, ESQ., HARRY MULHOLLAND, ESQ., and ROBERT O. FORT, ESQ., et al., Third-Party Respondents
Richards v. Lindquist
DONNELL RICHARDS, Appellant, v. WILHELMINA S. LINDQUIST, RENEE L. KENNEDY, aka RENEE L. WALDO, and CHARLES ALDABE, aka CHARLES D. ALDABE, Respondents. RENO ESCROW COMPANY, a Nevada Corporation, DONNELL RICHARDS, Appellants, v. WILHELMINA S. LINDQUIST, RENEE L. KENNEDY, et al., Respondents. WILHELMINA S. LINDQUIST and RENEE L. KENNEDY, H. DALE MURPHY, ESQ., HARRY MULHOLLAND, ESQ., and ROBERT O. FORT, ESQ., et al., Third-Party Respondents.
DONNELL RICHARDS, Appellant, v. WILHELMINA S. LINDQUIST, RENEE L. KENNEDY, aka RENEE L. WALDO, and CHARLES ALDABE, aka CHARLES D. ALDABE, Respondents. RENO ESCROW COMPANY, a Nevada Corporation, DONNELL RICHARDS, Appellants, v. WILHELMINA S. LINDQUIST, RENEE L. KENNEDY, et al., Respondents. WILHELMINA S. LINDQUIST and RENEE L. KENNEDY, H. DALE MURPHY, ESQ., HARRY MULHOLLAND, ESQ., and ROBERT O. FORT, ESQ., et al., Third-Party Respondents.
No. 8907
April 6, 1978
576 P.2d 749
[Rehearing denied May 17, 1978]
Donnell Richards and Paul A. Richards, Reno, and John Tom Ross, Carson City, for Appellants.
C. Nicholas Pereos, Reno, for Respondents and Third-Party Respondents Lindquist and Kennedy.
Laxalt, Berry & Allison, Carson City, for Third-Party Respondent Mulholland.
H. Dale Murphy, Reno, for Third-Party Respondent Murphy.
OPINION
Per Curiam:
In separate actions consolidated for trial, appellant Richards sought to (1) foreclose on a deed of trust securing a promissory note, and (2) set aside a transfer of property allegedly made to defraud creditors. Respondents moved for and were granted summary judgment.
Appellant here contends summary judgment was not proper because numerous issues of material fact are in dispute. Even viewing the record, as we must, in a light most favorable to appellant, we perceive no such dispute in the material facts; accordingly, the district court judgment is affirmed. NRCP 56; Olson v. Iacometti, 91 Nev. 241, 533 P.2d 1360 (1975).