BAC asserts that, pursuant to this court's holding in Leyva v. National Default Servicing Corp., 127 Nev. „ 255 P.3d 1275, 1277- 79 (2011), only those documents required under NRS 107.086(4) are held to a "strict compliance" standard, and therefore strict compliance with the FMR 11(3) requirements that do not appear in NRS 107.086(4) are not mandatory. The Sheffields, however, do not rely on FMR 11(3), but instead point to NRS 645C.730(1) in support of their argument. NRS 645C.730(1) states, in pertinent part, that [i]t is unlawful for an employee, director, officer or agent of an appraisal management company to influence or attempt to influence the development, reporting or review of an appraisal through. . . [a]y. . . act or practice that impairs or attempts to impair an appraiser's independence, objectivity or impartiality. Pursuant to NRS 645C.600, the provisions of NRS 645C.730 "do not apply to . . . [a] person, limited-liability company, partnership, association or corporation other than an appraisal management company which, in the normal course of its business, employs persons for the performance of real estate appraisal services." (Emphases added.) Here, BAC's use of the services of LandSafe does not place BAC within NRS 645C.034(1)'s definition of an appraisal management company. Rather, BAC functioned more as a "corporation other than an appraisal management company" when it employed LandSafe to perform the real estate appraisal for purposes of mediation and compliance with the FMRs. See NRS 645C.600. Under the FMRs, BAC was only required, as the beneficiary, to "produce an appraisal" of the property at issue in the foreclosure for the purpose of mediation negotiation. See FMR 11(6). Thus, BAC was under no specific duty to provide an appraisal that benefited the Sheffields. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A Even if we were to determine that BAC qualified as an "appraisal management company" pursuant to NRS 645C.034(1), BAC did not commit an act that attempted "to impair an appraiser's independence, objectivity or impartiality." NRS 645C.730(k). The FMRs merely required BAC to produce an appraisal for purposes of mediation, which it did. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the issuance of a foreclosure certificate. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Hardesty

a.AA .

Parraguirre

J.

cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge Mark L. Mausert Pite Duncan, LLP Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A