ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
The district court granted summary judgment for respondent and denied appellants request to file an amended complaint asserting NRS 106.240 as a basis for relief. In so doing, it determined that amendment would be futile in light of this courts decision in Glass v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Docket No. 78325, Order of Affirmance, at *2-3 (July 1, 2020), which held that a Notice of Rescission rescinding a previously recorded Notice of Default “effectively cancelled the acceleration” triggered by the Notice of Default, such that NRS 106.240’s 10-year period was reset. On appeal, appellant contends that (1) it did not need to file an amended complaint to assert NRS 106.240 as a basis for relief; and (2) the Notice of Rescission in this case is different from the Notice of Rescission in Glass, such that the Notice of Rescission in this case did not cancel the acceleration. While we find appellants first argument dubious, we need not Conclusively resolve it, as appellants second argument is simply inaccurate. The Notice of Rescission in this case is substantively identical to the Notice of Rescission in Glass. Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that the Notice of Rescission here had the same effect. 2
accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
3
FOOTNOTES
2
. To the extent appellant argues that the district court should have ordered an accounting reflecting a zero balance on the secured loan, this argument is meritless.
3
. The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.