SOLLER CORP. v. W.B.C. DEVELOPMENT, 96 Nev. 704 (1980)

615 P.2d 956

No. 10687Supreme Court of Nevada.
August 21, 1980

Appeal from judgment, Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Howard W. Babcock, Judge.

Dale W. Beasey, Las Vegas, for Appellant.

Deaner, Deaner Reynolds, Las Vegas, for Respondents.

OPINION
Per Curiam:

In an action to foreclose its labor and materialman’s lien against respondents’ apartment project, appellant, a sheet rock

Page 705

and painting contractor, recovered $2,601.75. Respondents counterclaimed, and recovered $100.00 as damages for slander of title.

On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in awarding it the sum of $2,601.75 rather than the full amount claimed, i.e., $21,269.19. Appellant further contends that respondents failed to prove malice or special damage and, therefore, the court erred in finding appellant had slandered respondents’ title by recording its notice of claim of lien.

In our view, the record amply supports the trial court’s conclusion that appellant was entitled to recover $2,601.75. Where a trial court, sitting without a jury, makes a determination upon conflicting evidence, that determination will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by substantial evidence. Harris v. Shell Dev. Corp., 95 Nev. 348, 594 P.2d 731
(1979). The record reflects that in October, 1973, appellant claimed it was owed $192,570.00, under its written and oral contracts, and $12,613.85 for extra work requested by the owners. By our calculations, prior payments made by the respondents, together with the trial court’s award, compensated appellant for this work. The trial court could properly conclude that appellant was not entitled to additional payment. The trial court was not required to accept appellant’s evidence. See Heidtman v. Nevada Ind. Comm’n, 78 Nev. 25, 368 P.2d 763 (1962); In re Duffill’s Estate, 57 Nev. 224, 61 P.2d 985 (1936).

The trial court’s finding that appellant had slandered respondents’ title is also supported by the evidence.[1] Cf.
Summa Corp. v. Greenspun, 96 Nev. 247, 607 P.2d 569 (1980). Although the trial court erroneously referred to “nominal” damages, we perceive no abuse of discretion in awarding respondents $100.00 as damages resulting from the wrongful recordation of the notice of claim of lien.

Affirmed.

MOWBRAY, C.J., and THOMPSON, MANOUKIAN, and BATJER, JJ., and ZENOFF, SR. J.,[2] concur.

Page 706