if it is endorsed in blank. . . ."); NRS 104.3205(2) ("When endorsed in blank, an instrument becomes payable to bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone . . . ." (emphasis added))'; see also Edelstein, Nev., Adv. Op. 48, 286 P.3d at 261 ("If the note is payable to bearer, that 'indicates that the person in possession of the promise or order is entitled to payment." (quoting Leyva, 127 Nev. at 478, 255 P.3d at 1280)).

Thus, by demonstrating that it was in possession of appellants' note that was endorsed in blank by appellants' original lender, CAM Mortgage established that the note had been properly negotiated and that CAM Mortgage was entitled to enforce it. This was a legal conclusion that was properly reached by the district court and that rendered an evidentiary hearing regarding additional supporting documentation unnecessary. As such, the district court was within its discretion in denying appellants' petition for judicial review without holding an evidentiary hearing. See FMR 21(2) (2013) (providing the district court with the discretion to determine the extent to which an evidentiary hearing is necessary). Accordingly, we f ORDER the jud t of the district court AFFIRMED.

Saitta

Gibbons Pickering Pia&t. J.

'In other words, a second or third blank endorsement is unnecessary. To the extent that appellants suggest that the FMP Rules impose requirements beyond those in the Uniform Commercial Code, we reject this suggestion.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A e cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge M. Nelson Segel, Settlement Judge James S. Kent Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas Aldridge Pite, LLP Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 194m e