NSCB Cannot Award Private Contract Damages Even After a Contractor Defaults; Voluntary “Surrender Request” Does Not Bar Regulatory Fines

1. Introduction

Assured Dev., Inc. v. Nev. State Contractors Bd. (Nev. June 16, 2026) arises from a payment dispute between a licensed contractor, Assured Development, Inc. (“Assured”), and its subcontractor, A3 Builders (“A3”), over approximately $32,000 in alleged unpaid work. A3 filed two complaints with the Nevada State Contractors Board (“NSCB”). Although NSCB served Assured and Assured apparently filed a pre-hearing motion, Assured did not appear at the June 14, 2023 administrative hearing.

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) proceeded under NAC 624.7283(1) (nonappearance may waive the right to present evidence), received A3’s evidence, and issued an order that (1) effectively awarded A3 the $32,000, (2) imposed six $1,000 fines for six violations of NRS Chapter 624, and (3) suspended Assured’s contractor license until A3 was paid.

On judicial review, the district court denied relief. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court addressed three core issues: (a) whether Assured was denied due process; (b) whether NSCB had statutory authority to award the $32,000 in a private contract dispute under Bivins Construction v. State Contractors' Board; and (c) whether NSCB could impose fines when Assured had submitted a request to voluntarily surrender its license.

2. Summary of the Opinion

  • Due process: No violation. Assured failed to substantiate claims of an “improper investigation” or a denied continuance, and it did not dispute that proper notice was given and that the hearing could proceed in its absence under NAC 624.7283(1).
  • $32,000 award: Reversed. Applying Bivins Construction v. State Contractors' Board, the Court held NSCB exceeded its statutory authority by awarding damages on a private contractual dispute; judicial review was warranted under NRS 233B.135(3).
  • $6,000 in fines: Affirmed. Assured’s March 1, 2023 “Request to Voluntarily Surrender a License” did not, by itself, eliminate NSCB’s authority, and public policy counseled against allowing licensees to evade accountability by unilateral surrender.

The Court therefore affirmed in part (due process rejection; fines upheld), reversed in part (damages award vacated), and remanded.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1) City of Reno v. Yturbide

The Court relied on City of Reno v. Yturbide, 135 Nev. 113, 115, 440 P.3d 32, 34-35 (2019), for the appellate posture: when reviewing a district court’s denial of a petition for judicial review, the Supreme Court reviews the administrative decision “in the same manner” as the district court. This frames the Court’s role as focused on administrative-law standards rather than typical civil trial review.

2) Dutchess Bus. Servs., Inc. v. Nev. State Bd. of Pharmacy

Assured’s due process attack invoked the principle from Dutchess Bus. Servs., Inc. v. Nev. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 124 Nev. 701, 711, 191 P.3d 1159, 1166 (2008): agencies must follow established procedures and give notice of issues and factual material so the respondent can rebut it. The Court used this as a benchmark but found Assured did not adequately show a procedural breach or provide record support.

3) Sullivan v. Lincoln Cnty. Water Dist.

Citing Sullivan v. Lincoln Cnty. Water Dist., 140 Nev., Adv. Op. 4, 542 P.3d 411, 425 (2024), the Court reiterated two key points: (i) due process claims are reviewed de novo; and (ii) procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Court applied this directly to Assured’s nonappearance: where notice and the opportunity existed, choosing not to attend undermined the due process claim.

4) Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest. and NRAP 28(a)(10)

The Court invoked Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006), and NRAP 28(a)(10) to emphasize that appellants must present cogent, record-supported arguments with relevant authority. This supported rejecting the “improper investigation” and “continuance denial” theories due to inadequate citation and unclear record support.

5) Bivins Construction v. State Contractors' Board

Bivins Construction v. State Contractors' Board, 107 Nev. 281, 809 P.2d 1268 (1991), is the opinion’s doctrinal center. The Court quoted Bivins’ statutory holding—citing NRS 624.300(1)—that NSCB “does not have the authority to impose damages upon parties subject to its licensing authority.” The Court treated the $32,000 award as precisely what Bivins forbids: an agency damages award resolving a private contract payment dispute.

Importantly, the Court rejected NSCB’s waiver argument (that Assured failed to raise Bivins below) because Assured could not be expected to anticipate an agency exceeding its statutory authority. This underscores that ultra vires agency action remains reviewable even when a party defaults or fails to preserve an objection.

6) Liu v. Christopher Homes, LLC

NSCB argued Bivins was inapplicable because Assured failed to present evidence at the administrative hearing. The Court rejected that approach and cited Liu v. Christopher Homes, LLC, 130 Nev. 147, 151, 321 P.3d 875, 877 (2014), for de novo review of the interpretation of Nevada Supreme Court dispositions. The point: Bivins is a legal constraint on NSCB authority, not a fact-dependent defense forfeited by nonappearance.

7) Tam v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.

On the fines issue, the Court cited Tam v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. 792, 800, 358 P.3d 234, 240 (2015), for the canon that statutes should be interpreted consistently with “reason and public policy.” That supported the Court’s refusal to endorse a rule allowing contractors to evade discipline by attempting to surrender licensure before a hearing on pre-surrender misconduct.

B. Legal Reasoning

1) Due process and default under NAC 624.7283(1)

The ALJ proceeded under NAC 624.7283(1), which deems failure to appear a waiver of the right to present evidence, so long as there is an offer of proof and a determination that proper notice was given. The Supreme Court emphasized two deficiencies in Assured’s due process presentation:

  • “Improper investigation” lacked record support and appeared not to have been preserved in a meaningful way; the Court treated the briefing as inadequate under Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest. and NRAP 28(a)(10).
  • “Denied a hearing” failed because the record did not show a continuance request and, in any event, Assured did not dispute the finding of proper notice under NAC 624.7283(1). Due process requires an opportunity to be heard, not that a party must be rescued from its decision not to attend.

2) Statutory authority: regulatory discipline vs. civil damages

The Court sharply separated NSCB’s legitimate regulatory role (licensing, discipline, fines, suspensions) from adjudication of private damages. Under Bivins Construction v. State Contractors' Board and NRS 624.300(1), NSCB may sanction misconduct but may not award contract damages as if it were a civil court.

The Court then tied the remedy to administrative judicial review standards: because the damages award was “in excess of the statutory authority of the agency,” judicial intervention was required under NRS 233B.135(3). This is an archetypal administrative-law holding: even if the agency followed procedure, it cannot act beyond delegated power.

3) Fines notwithstanding an attempted surrender

Assured’s argument that a voluntary surrender stripped NSCB of power failed on two levels:

  • Textual/record point: Assured submitted a “Request to Voluntarily Surrender a License”—the Court treated it as a request requiring NSCB action, and Assured cited no authority making such a request self-executing.
  • Public policy point: even if surrender could be unilateral, allowing it to defeat enforcement would undermine the regulatory scheme—an interpretation disfavored under Tam v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct..

C. Impact

  • Reinforcement (and practical extension) of Bivins: The decision underscores that NSCB’s lack of authority to award civil damages persists even in a default setting where the contractor does not appear and only the complainant’s evidence is presented. Agencies cannot convert disciplinary hearings into substitute civil collection forums.
  • Preservation/waiver limits in ultra vires challenges: By rejecting waiver, the Court signals that parties may challenge agency action as beyond statutory authority even when they did not raise that specific legal constraint at the administrative stage—particularly where the overreach becomes apparent only upon the agency’s final decision.
  • Regulatory accountability survives attempted surrender: Contractors cannot likely avoid fines for pre-surrender misconduct through a unilateral surrender request, strengthening NSCB’s enforcement leverage and protecting the public-facing purpose of licensing discipline.
  • Procedural lesson for licensees: Nonappearance after notice under NAC 624.7283(1) is perilous; due process arguments are unlikely to succeed where the record shows notice and an available opportunity to attend.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • “Judicial review” (NRS 233B): A court process for reviewing whether an agency acted lawfully (within its authority, with proper procedure, supported by required standards), not a full re-trial of the dispute.
  • “De novo” review: The appellate court decides the legal issue fresh, without deference to the lower court’s legal conclusions.
  • “In excess of statutory authority”: The agency did something the Legislature did not empower it to do. Even correct procedures cannot cure a lack of power.
  • NAC 624.7283(1) waiver by nonappearance: If properly noticed, a party that does not show up can lose the right to present evidence; the hearing may proceed on the evidence offered by the appearing party.
  • Discipline vs. damages: Discipline (fines, suspension) enforces licensing rules and protects the public; damages compensate one private party for another’s breach—typically the role of courts, not licensing boards.

5. Conclusion

This decision draws a bright line between NSCB’s disciplinary authority and the courts’ role in awarding civil damages: even when a contractor defaults under NAC 624.7283(1), NSCB cannot award a subcontractor contract damages barred by Bivins Construction v. State Contractors' Board, and such an award must be reversed under NRS 233B.135(3). At the same time, the Court upheld NSCB’s ability to impose regulatory fines despite an attempted voluntary surrender request, rejecting a path that would allow licensees to evade accountability for pre-surrender conduct.