Steven Valdez v. Philip Neuman

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Steven Troy Valdez appeals the judgment against him after a bench trial in his suit for contract rescission. We vacate in part, affirm in part, and remand.

I. Rescission

The meaning of “assume” is not ambiguous and therefore can be decided as a matter of law. See Chwialkowski v. Sachs, 108 Nev. 404 , 834 P.2d 405, 406 (1992) (per curiam) (holding that summary judgment was proper because unambiguous contractual language can be construed as a matter of law). To “assume” a debt is to agree to pay that debt when it is due, for assumption of a debt requires “be-com[ing] bound as another is bound.” Black’s Law Dictionary 112 (5th ed.1979). By interpreting the word “assume” as not creating a duty to pay, the district court committed legal error. Likewise, it committed legal error by ruling that the contract “ma[de] no mention of ... a time table for” payment of debts. The unambiguous meaning of “assume” created no latitude as to when verified debts were to be paid; they were to be paid when they were due.

Because of this legal error, the district court in its post-trial order made no express finding as to what the ambiguous term “verification” meant. On the last…