Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 104 - UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE—ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.9105 (2026)

Control of electronic copy of record evidencing chattel paper

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 104.9105  Control of electronic copy of record evidencing chattel paper.

      1.  A purchaser has control of an authoritative electronic copy of a record evidencing chattel paper if a system employed for evidencing the assignment of interests in the chattel paper reliably establishes the purchaser as the person to which the authoritative electronic copy was assigned.

      2.  A system satisfies subsection 1 if the record or records evidencing the chattel paper are created, stored and assigned in such a manner that:

      (a) A single authoritative copy of the record or records exists which is unique, identifiable and, except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (d), (e) and (f), unalterable;

      (b) The authoritative copy identifies the purchaser as the assignee of the record or records;

      (c) The authoritative copy is communicated to and maintained by the purchaser or its designated custodian;

      (d) Copies or amendments that add or change an identified assignee of the authoritative copy can be made only with the consent of the purchaser;

      (e) Each copy of the authoritative copy and any copy of a copy is readily identifiable as a copy that is not the authoritative copy; and

      (f) Any amendment of the authoritative copy is readily identifiable as authorized or unauthorized.

      3.  A system satisfies subsection 1, and a purchaser has control of an authoritative electronic copy of a record evidencing chattel paper, if the electronic copy, a record attached to or logically associated with the electronic copy or a system in which the electronic copy is recorded:

      (a) Enables the purchaser readily to identify each electronic copy as either an authoritative copy or a nonauthoritative copy;

      (b) Enables the purchaser readily to identify itself in any way, including by name, identifying number, cryptographic key, office or account number, as the assignee of the authoritative electronic copy; and

      (c) Gives the purchaser exclusive power, subject to subsection 4, to:

             (1) Prevent others from adding or changing an identified assignee of the authoritative electronic copy; and

             (2) Transfer control of the authoritative electronic copy.

      4.  Subject to subsection 5, a power is exclusive under subparagraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph (c) of subsection 3, even if:

      (a) The authoritative electronic copy, a record attached to or logically associated with the authoritative electronic copy or a system in which the authoritative electronic copy is recorded limits the use of the authoritative electronic copy or has a protocol programmed to cause a change, including a transfer or loss of control; or

      (b) The power is shared with another person.

      5.  A power of a purchaser is not shared with another person under paragraph (b) of subsection 4 and the purchaser’s power is not exclusive if:

      (a) The purchaser can exercise a power only if the power also is exercised by the other person; and

      (b) The other person:

             (1) Can exercise the power without exercise of the power by the purchaser; or

             (2) Is the transferor to the purchaser of an interest in the chattel paper.

      6.  If a purchaser has the powers specified in subparagraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph (c) of subsection 3, the powers are presumed to be exclusive.

      7.  A purchaser has control of an authoritative electronic copy of a record evidencing chattel paper if another person, other than the transferor to the purchaser of an interest in the chattel paper:

      (a) Has control of the authoritative electronic copy and acknowledges that it has control on behalf of the purchaser; or

      (b) Obtains control of the authoritative electronic copy after having acknowledged that it will obtain control of the electronic copy on behalf of the purchaser.

      (Added to NRS by 1999, 292; A 2011, 617; 2023, 3204)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1974–1995 · leading case: NEVADA R. & S. CO. v. United States Dept. of Treasury IRS, 376 F. Supp. 161 (D. Nev. 1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
NEVADA R. & S. CO. v. United States Dept. of Treasury IRS, 376 F. Supp. 161 (D. Nev. 1974). · cites it 2× “The IRS feels that this conclusion is also buttressed by the definition of “secured party” found in NRS § 104.9105, subd. l(i). (Government’s Post Trial Brief, p.”
Union Bank v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 899 P.2d 564 (Nev. 1995). · cites it 2× “NRS 104.9105(1)(d) has no application to this matter, as Union Bank, by virtue of its garnishment, simply acquired the power to assert Anderson’s rights, as debtor.”
May v. G.M.B., Inc., 778 P.2d 424 (Nev. 1989). “” NRS 104.9105(1)(1). A “security interest,” in turn, is “an interest in personal property or fixtures which secures payment or performance of an obligation.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.9105(1)(1) — 1 case
May v. G.M.B., Inc., 778 P.2d 424 (Nev. 1989). “” NRS 104.9105(1)(1). A “security interest,” in turn, is “an interest in personal property or fixtures which secures payment or performance of an obligation.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.9105(1)(d) — 1 case
Union Bank v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 899 P.2d 564 (Nev. 1995). “NRS 104.9105(1)(d) has no application to this matter, as Union Bank, by virtue of its garnishment, simply acquired the power to assert Anderson’s rights, as debtor.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.9105(d) — 1 case
Union Bank v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 899 P.2d 564 (Nev. 1995). “NRS 104.9105(1)(d) has no application to this matter, as Union Bank, by virtue of its garnishment, simply acquired the power to assert Anderson’s rights, as debtor.”
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.