NRS
104.3203 Transfer of instrument; rights acquired by transfer.
1. An instrument is transferred when it is
delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the
person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument.
2. Transfer of an instrument, whether or
not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the
transferor to enforce the instrument, including any right as a holder in due
course, but the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course by a
transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee
engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument.
3. Unless otherwise agreed, if an
instrument is transferred for value and the transferee does not become a holder
because of lack of endorsement by the transferor, the transferee has a
specifically enforceable right to the unqualified endorsement of the transferor,
but negotiation of the instrument does not occur until the endorsement is made.
4. If a transferor purports to transfer
less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur.
The transferee obtains no rights under this article and has only the rights of
a partial assignee.
(Added to NRS by 1965,
823; A 1993,
1267)
Notes of Decisions
Leyva v. Nat'l Default Servicing Corp., 255 P.3d 1275 (Nev. 2011).
· cites it 3× “NRS 104.3203(2). The only distinction between a negotiation and a transfer is that, in the case of a transfer, the note need not be endorsed by the party who is relinquishing enforcement rights.”
Vega v. Ctx Mortg. Co., LLC, 761 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (D. Nev. 2011).
· cites it 10× “MERS purported in the “Assignment of Deed of Trust” to transfer the “beneficial interest” to Chase for value, which would in fact give Chase the right to enforce the note even without negotiation, see Nev.Rev.Stat. § 104.3203(2), but MERS likely did not have the ability to make…”
In re Phillips, 491 B.R. 255 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2013).
· cites it 2× “§ 3-203 (2002); Nev.Rev. Stat. § 104.3203 (2011). . All "Chapter” and "Section” references are to the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.”
Schettler v. Ralron Capital Corp., 275 P.3d 933 (Nev. 2012).
“Additionally, the shelter rule, which gives a transferee of an instrument the rights of a holder in due course, NRS 104.3203(2), does not apply because the FDIC as receiver is not a holder in due course.”
Stuhmer v. Talmer West Bank (Nev. 2017).
“See NRS 104.3203(2). We likewise are not persuaded by appellant's argument 'Over one year after the complaint was filed, the parties agreed to extend the discovery deadline several months, to January 13, 2015, and they later agreed to postpone the hearing on respondent's interim…”
HSBC Bank USA v. Green Valley Pecos Homeowners (9th Cir. 2019).
“1986) (per curiam); see also Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.3203 (2). To the extent that HSBC attempts to raise a due process challenge that has not been foreclosed by our precedents, see Bank of Am.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.3203(2) — 4 cases
Leyva v. Nat'l Default Servicing Corp., 255 P.3d 1275 (Nev. 2011).
“NRS 104.3203(2). The only distinction between a negotiation and a transfer is that, in the case of a transfer, the note need not be endorsed by the party who is relinquishing enforcement rights.”
Vega v. Ctx Mortg. Co., LLC, 761 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (D. Nev. 2011).
“MERS purported in the “Assignment of Deed of Trust” to transfer the “beneficial interest” to Chase for value, which would in fact give Chase the right to enforce the note even without negotiation, see Nev.Rev.Stat. § 104.3203(2), but MERS likely did not have the ability to make…”
Schettler v. Ralron Capital Corp., 275 P.3d 933 (Nev. 2012).
“Additionally, the shelter rule, which gives a transferee of an instrument the rights of a holder in due course, NRS 104.3203(2), does not apply because the FDIC as receiver is not a holder in due course.”
Stuhmer v. Talmer West Bank (Nev. 2017).
“See NRS 104.3203(2). We likewise are not persuaded by appellant's argument 'Over one year after the complaint was filed, the parties agreed to extend the discovery deadline several months, to January 13, 2015, and they later agreed to postpone the hearing on respondent's interim…”
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.