Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Sfr Inv.’S Pool 1, Llc V. U.S. Bank Nat’L Ass’N, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Sept. 26, 2019), Brittni Tanenbaum
Sfr Inv.’S Pool 1, Llc V. U.S. Bank Nat’L Ass’N, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Sept. 26, 2019), Brittni Tanenbaum
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
When a court grants retroactive annulment for an automatic bankruptcy stay on a property, a sale of the property during the stay will not be set aside, unless it can be shown that fraud, oppression, or unfairness occurred during the sales process.
Ln Mgmt. Llc Series 5105 Portraits Place V. Green Tree Loan Servicing Llc, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 55 (Aug. 03, 2017), Wesley Lemay Jr.
Ln Mgmt. Llc Series 5105 Portraits Place V. Green Tree Loan Servicing Llc, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 55 (Aug. 03, 2017), Wesley Lemay Jr.
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
If a homeowner that owns property in Nevada but declares bankruptcy in Texas and fails to list the Home Owners Association (HOA) as a creditor, the HOA cannot violate the automatic stay imposed by the bankruptcy and sell the property. If the property is sold in violation of the automatic stay, the sale is invalid. Under Ninth Circuit law, the sale is void ab initio while the Fifth Circuit holds that these types of sales are voidable, but can be approved by the bankruptcy court.
K&P Homes V. Christiana Trust, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (July 27, 2017), Yolanda Carapia
K&P Homes V. Christiana Trust, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (July 27, 2017), Yolanda Carapia
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that the SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A. decision, extinguishing first security interests, applies retroactively to all foreclosures occurring prior to the date of the decision and since NRS 116.3116’s inception.
Kaplan V. Dutra, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 80 (Dec. 1, 2016) (En Banc), Hayley Cummings
Kaplan V. Dutra, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 80 (Dec. 1, 2016) (En Banc), Hayley Cummings
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court, sitting en banc, reviewed a certified question from the United States Bankruptcy Court, determining that under NRS 21.010(1)(u) a debtor is entitled to a personal injury exemption of $16,150 for each personal injury claim.
Tower Homes V. Heaton, Nev. Adv. Op. 62, (Aug. 12, 2016), Sydney Campau
Tower Homes V. Heaton, Nev. Adv. Op. 62, (Aug. 12, 2016), Sydney Campau
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court determined that granting creditors control over a debtor’s legal malpractice claim and any proceeds resulting from the action constituted an improper assignment of a legal malpractice claim that was contrary to public policy.
Becker V. Becker, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 85 (Oct. 29, 2015), Paul George
Becker V. Becker, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 85 (Oct. 29, 2015), Paul George
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In response to a certified question by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada, the Court concluded that under NRS 21.090(1)(bb) a debtor can exempt his stock in the corporations described in NRS 78.746(2), but his economic interest in that stock is still subject to the charging order remedy in NRS 78.746(1).
In Re Montierth, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 55, Walter Fick
In Re Montierth, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 55, Walter Fick
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that the separation of a promissory note, held by a principal, and the deed of trust, held by an agent of the principal, does not render either instrument “void,” or require the reunification of the note and the deed of trust in order to foreclose. The Court further held that, under Nevada law and in the case of a contractual principal-agent relationship, the recordation of an assignment of a deed of trust is a “ministerial act.”