In a decision filed Monday at 4:13 p.m., District Court Judge Robert Lane ruled in favor of Donald Quinn in his complaint against his neighbors Tim and Amy Maples, who have horses in the backyard of their Calvada home on Fawn Street.

The Maples maintain they bought and live on horse property. However, Lane ruled their home sits on a "single-family lot," which is not allowed to have horses, rather than a "residential-agricultural lot" which may have two horses for recreational use.

According to Lane's ruling, the Maples have the right to appeal this case to the Nevada Supreme Court. Lane also stated that "district court decisions are persuasive, but not controlling on future district litigation as each case is fact specific."

As of the press deadline for this report, the Maples have not seen the ruling and have no response to the finding.

However, Lane said quite a bit in his highly detailed 17-page decision.

In fact, Lane offered 11 footnotes which indicate that, had the Maples been better prepared and represented by legal counsel from the onset, the results might have favored them.

The Maples relied on a paralegal to prepare forms, and Tim Maples testified and represented himself before the court.

When Maples filed his motion for reconsideration of Lane's summary judgment decision in favor of Quinn March 20, he introduced new evidence in the form of affidavits from past employees of Preferred Equities Corp.

The former employees swore the land originally sold by PEC described as "ranchettes" -- which includes the Maples' lot -- were known to be "residential-agricultural lots" in the deed of restrictions.

Unfortunately, according to Lane, the affidavits left out pertinent information. In his ruling, he wrote the testimony in the affidavits "may be persuasive if properly presented..."

Lane noted the affidavits all stated the same information in a generic form and it was unclear what the statements were based upon.

He asked, "Was it just general knowledge or practice; did affiants personally know this; how did they know this with surety; what information do they have to reach this conclusion?"

Quinn's attorney objected to the "boilerplate fill-in-the-blanks" affidavits, saying they were new evidence and untimely.

Lane also referred to untimely findings several times. He said it is each person's responsibility to be prepared when entering the courtroom to represent himself, just as an attorney is held accountable for his preparations.

Lane said new evidence had to "shock the conscience," but "these affidavits do not reach that level of evidence ... The Court would be reluctant to overturn a holding based on an unsubstantiated bald claim ... without additional information and an opportunity for the opposing side to cross examine affiants.

"It is regretful this testimony is untimely. (The) defendant notes he did not discover the information until the affiants came forward to him with the information," Lane said.

"However, a court cannot re-litigate an issue each time a party goes out and gathers more evidence after its conclusion. It is inherently unfair to the other side to have to pay a counsel repeatedly to re-fight an issue over and over ...

"Justice not only demands we reach the right conclusion," wrote Lane, "but also that we do so quickly and fairly. That is why matters are done in order, pursuant to rules."