NRS
101.060 Release without reservation of rights.
1. If an obligee releasing or discharging an
obligor without express reservation of rights against a coobligor, then knows
or has reason to know that the obligor released or discharged did not pay so
much of the claim as the obligor was bound by his or her contract or relation
with that coobligor to pay, the obligee’s claim against that coobligor shall be
satisfied to the amount which the obligee knew or had reason to know that the
released or discharged obligor was bound to such coobligor to pay.
2. If an obligee so releasing or
discharging an obligor has not then such knowledge or reason to know, the
obligee’s claim against the coobligor shall be satisfied to the extent of the
lesser of two amounts, namely, (1) the amount of the fractional share of the
obligor released or discharged, or (2) the amount that such obligor was bound
by his contract or relation with the coobligor to pay.
[5:35:1927; NCL § 3704]
Notes of Decisions
Whittlesea v. Farmer, 469 P.2d 57 (Nev. 1970).
· cites it 4× “[1] A release or discharge of one of the defendants without an express reservation *59 of rights against the others discharges the others to the extent provided in NRS 101.060. Of course, such a release or discharge may expressly reserve the rights of the claimants against the…”
Russ v. Gen. Motors Corp., 906 P.2d 718 (Nev. 1995).
“In pertinent part, the UJOA states: If an obligee releasing or discharging an obligor without express reservation of rights against a coobligor, then knows or has reason to know that the obligor released or discharged did not pay so much of the claim as he was bound by his…”
Hansen v. Collett, 380 P.2d 301 (Nev. 1963).
“0^0, as noted above, and in the absence of a reservation of rights, shall discharge co-obligors only to the extent provided in NRS 101.060, which follows. That section then provides, under varying circumstances which on their face require the proof of facts, as to how a payment…”
Sw. Sec. v. AMFAC, Inc., 879 P.2d 755 (Nev. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, respondents contend that under the Uniform Joint Obligations Act, a release or discharge of one co-obligor without express reservation against other co-obligors discharges the others to the extent provided in NRS 101.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 101.060(1) — 2 cases
Russ v. Gen. Motors Corp., 906 P.2d 718 (Nev. 1995).
“In pertinent part, the UJOA states: If an obligee releasing or discharging an obligor without express reservation of rights against a coobligor, then knows or has reason to know that the obligor released or discharged did not pay so much of the claim as he was bound by his…”
Sw. Sec. v. AMFAC, Inc., 879 P.2d 755 (Nev. 1994).
“Moreover, respondents contend that under the Uniform Joint Obligations Act, a release or discharge of one co-obligor without express reservation against other co-obligors discharges the others to the extent provided in NRS 101.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.