Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Ambiguous insurance policy provision (1)
- Bank Secrecy Act (1)
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION; SUPERPRIORITY LIENS (1)
- Certified Question (1)
- Check City (1)
-
- Contract interpretation (1)
- Daven Cameron (1)
- Deceptive Trade Practices (1)
- Deferred deposit loan (1)
- Deficiency Judgment (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Grace Period (1)
- Knowingly (1)
- NRS 605A.425 (1)
- Notice of Deficiency (1)
- One-Action Rule (1)
- Payday loan (1)
- Statutory Interpretation (1)
- Statutory Right (1)
- Suspicious activity report (1)
- Title Loan (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Poole V. Nev. Auto Dealership Inv.’S, Llc, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (Sept. 5, 2019), Petya Pucci
Poole V. Nev. Auto Dealership Inv.’S, Llc, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (Sept. 5, 2019), Petya Pucci
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“NDTPA”) , (1) “knowingly” means that “the defendant is aware that the facts exist that constitute the act or omission”, and (2) that a fact is “material” if either (a) “a reasonable person would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence in determining a choice of action in the transaction in question,” or b) “the defendant knows or has reason to know that the consumer regards or is likely to regard the matter as important in determining a choice of action, although a reasonable person may not so regard …
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 …
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.
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 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 Century Sur. Co. V. Casino W., Inc., 130 Adv. Nev. Op. 42, Michael Paretti
Summary Of Century Sur. Co. V. Casino W., Inc., 130 Adv. Nev. Op. 42, Michael Paretti
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The court determined whether two distinct provisions of an insurance policy regarding air pollution were subject to multiple reasonable interpretations.
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.