Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Bank Secrecy Act (1)
- Banking (1)
- Check City (1)
- DEFICIENCY JUDGMENTS (1)
- Daven Cameron (1)
-
- Deferred deposit loan (1)
- Deficiency Judgment (1)
- Deficiency judgments (1)
- Discovery (1)
- FDIC (1)
- Grace Period (1)
- NRS 107 (1)
- NRS 40 (1)
- NRS 40.459(1)(c) (1)
- NRS 605A.425 (1)
- Notice of Deficiency (1)
- One-Action Rule (1)
- Payday loan (1)
- Property (1)
- SECURITIES (1)
- Securities (1)
- Statutory Interpretation (1)
- Statutory Right (1)
- Suspicious activity report (1)
- Title Loan (1)
- Torts (1)
- Unauthorized bank activity (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
State, Dep’T Of Bus. & Indus. V. Titlemax, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (Sept. 26, 2019), Alexis Taitel
State, Dep’T Of Bus. & Indus. V. Titlemax, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (Sept. 26, 2019), Alexis Taitel
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In an en banc opinion, the Nevada Supreme Court answered whether title lender TitleMax’s Grace Period Deferment Agreement (“GPPDA”), which applied to short-term, high-interest loans offered to Nevada consumers in 2014 and 2015, qualified as a true grace period under NRS 604A.210. The Court concluded that the GPPDA was not a true grace period, but was instead an impermissible extension of the 210-day loans. The Court reasoned that the GPPDA was an extension because TitleMax charged borrowers additional interest during the extended period and thus violated NRS 604A.445, a statute enacted by the Nevada Legislature in part to protect consumers …
Johnson V. Wells Fargo Bank Nat’L Ass’N, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 70 (September 29, 2016), Brittni Griffith
Johnson V. Wells Fargo Bank Nat’L Ass’N, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 70 (September 29, 2016), Brittni Griffith
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considered whether the Bank Secrecy Act prevents financial institutions from disclosing all investigative information in discovery to an adverse party. The Court held that the Bank Secrecy Act only precludes the disclosure of information relating to the existence of a suspicious activity report or the procedural nature of the suspicious activity report’s generation.
Summary Of C. Nicholas Pereos, Ltd. V. Bank Of America, N.A., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 61553 (July 2, 2015), Stacy Newman
Summary Of C. Nicholas Pereos, Ltd. V. Bank Of America, N.A., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 61553 (July 2, 2015), Stacy Newman
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considers an appeal from a district court summary judgment in a tort case concerning losses sustained due to unauthorized activity in a customer’s bank account. The Court reversed the grant of summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether respondent Bank of America acted reasonably in delivering bank statements, and also because the appellant’s suit was not time barred under a one year period of repose.
Summary Of Munoz V. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 23 (Apr. 30, 2015), Michael S. Valiente
Summary Of Munoz V. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 23 (Apr. 30, 2015), Michael S. Valiente
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
NRS 40.459(1)(c)’s limitation on the amount of deficiency judgment that a successor can recover conflicts with the federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act’s (“FIRREA”) purpose of facilitating the transfer of assets of failed banks to other institutions. Because NRS 40.459(1)(c) limits the value a successor can recover on a deficiency judgment, its application to assets transferred by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) frustrates FIRREA’s purpose. Therefore, NRS 40.459(1)(c) is preempted by FIRREA to the extent that NRS 40.459(1)(c) limits deficiency judgment that may be obtained from loans transferred by the FDIC.
Summary Of Branch Banking & Trust V. Windhaven & Tollway, Llc, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (Apr. 30, 2015), Joseph Meissner
Summary Of Branch Banking & Trust V. Windhaven & Tollway, Llc, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (Apr. 30, 2015), Joseph Meissner
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined the proper interpretation of NRS 40.455(1), and applied it in a claim for a deficiency judgment following an out-of-state nonjudicial foreclosure. NRS 40.455(1) “does not require an out-of-state trustee’s sale to comply with NRS 107.080, nor does it preclude a deficiency judgment in Nevada when a nonjudicial foreclosure sale is conducted pursuant to the laws of another state.”
Summary Of State, Dept. Of Bus. And Industry V. Check City P’Ship, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 90, Daven Cameron
Summary Of State, Dept. Of Bus. And Industry V. Check City P’Ship, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 90, Daven Cameron
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court interpreted NRS 605A.425 and concluded that the statute unambiguously provides that a borrower’s deferred deposit loan is to be capped at 25 percent of the borrower’s expected gross monthly income. This cap includes both principal and any interest or fees charged.
Summary Of Lavi V. Eighth Judicial District Court, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 38, Danielle Barraza
Summary Of Lavi V. Eighth Judicial District Court, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 38, Danielle Barraza
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined whether waiver of the “one-action rule” of NRS 40.430 terminates the procedural requirements for bringing a deficiency judgment action within six months of foreclosure under NRS 40.455.