Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 106.360 (2026)

Execution, enforceability, contents and amendment of instrument

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 106.360 Execution, enforceability, contents and amendment of instrument.

1. A borrower may execute an instrument encumbering the borrower’s real property to secure future advances from a lender within a mutually agreed maximum amount of principal. The instrument or an amendment to the instrument is enforceable only if the instrument or the amendment is recorded in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the real property is located and the party seeking to enforce the instrument or the amendment is an original party to the instrument or amendment or the current assignee of record.

2. The instrument must state clearly:

(a) That it secures future advances; and

(b) The maximum amount of principal to be secured.

3. The maximum amount of advances of principal to be secured by the instrument may increase or decrease from time to time by amendment of the instrument.

(Added to NRS by 1985, 725; A 1989, 492; 2011, 328, 1748)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case: J.A. Jones Constr. Co. v. Wilmington Trust Co., 127 P.3d 1076 (Nev. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

J.A. Jones Constr. Co. v. Wilmington Trust Co., 127 P.3d 1076 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 6× “*181 In June 2001, the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Wilmington, ruling that NRS 106.360 did not set forth mandatory requirements for future advance instruments and instead was a “safe harbor” statute that a party must elect to be bound by, which…”

White v. 5 Arch Income Fund 2, LLC (D. Nev. 2024). “]” NRS 106.360. 4 Here, Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare that multiple assignments are invalid 5 because they were executed before being recording.”

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.