Before Justices Douglas, Hardesty and Parraguirre. Opinion by Justice Parraguirre.
In this petition for writ of mandamus, the Court addresses the scope of a district court’s authority to unilaterally modify a settlement agreement under NRS 41.200, Nevada’s statute governing the compromise of a minor child’s claim. The Court reviewed the history of the case, in which a child ward of the state’s claim against a health care provider was brought by Petitioners (her attorney and her guardian ad litem) on her behalf. The parties reached a settlement and submitted it to the district court for approval. The district court denied the compromise because the amounts awarded to the Petitioners exceeded the amount payable to the minor. Petitioners again moved for approval of the compromise, this time with supporting documentation. The district court approved the overall amount of the settlement but changed the allotted amounts payable to Petitioners and the minor, respectively. Petitioners’ writ of mandamus challenges the district court’s authority to alter the distribution unilaterally. The Supreme Court denied this part of the writ petition. The Court looked to NRS 41.200(1), which provides that a compromise made on a minor’s behalf is not effective until approved by a district court. The Court broadly construed the authority granted by this section to encompass a review of the apportionment of proceeds, including the amount for attorney’s fees and costs. As support for its position, the Court noted that other subsections of NRS 41.200 provide that a petition must include the proposed allocation of fees and expenses, and that therefore such aspects of the compromise are within a district court’s discretion when it conducts its review under 41.200(1). The Court also noted that its result is consistent with NRCP 17(c), which allows a district court to issue any “order as it deems proper for the protection” of a minor. The Court cited federal case law interpreting NRCP 17’s federal analog, FRCP 17, to give courts authority to evaluate whether the net recovery of a minor is fair and reasonable. Finally, the Court granted in part the writ petition because the district court’s reallocation of funds was unclear as between the attorney and the guardian. The Court instructed the district court to provide a distribution (with an explanation) of the allocated amount as between the attorney and the guardian. Denied in part, granted in part, and remanded. (Mark W. Dunagan, Associate in the Reno office of McDonald Carano Wilson LLP).
