Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.095

Notice of default: Mailing to guarantor or surety of debt; effect of failure to give

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 107.095  Notice of default: Mailing to guarantor or surety of debt; effect of failure to give.

      1.  The notice of default required by NRS 107.080 must also be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested and with postage prepaid or, if authorized by the parties, by electronic transmission to each guarantor or surety of the debt. If the address of the guarantor or surety is unknown, the notice must be sent to the address of the trust property. Failure to give the notice, except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, releases the guarantor or surety from his or her obligation to the beneficiary, but does not affect the validity of a sale conducted pursuant to NRS 107.080 or the obligation of any guarantor or surety to whom the notice was properly given.

      2.  Failure to give the notice of default required by NRS 107.090, except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, releases the obligation to the beneficiary of any person who has complied with NRS 107.090 and who is or may otherwise be held liable for the debt or other obligation secured by the deed of trust, but such a failure does not affect the validity of a sale conducted pursuant to NRS 107.080 or the obligation of any person to whom the notice was properly given pursuant to this section or to NRS 107.080 or 107.090.

      3.  A guarantor, surety or other obligor is not released pursuant to this section if:

      (a) The required notice is given at least 15 days before the later of:

             (1) The expiration of the 15- or 35-day period described in paragraph (a) of subsection 2 of NRS 107.080;

             (2) In the case of any deed of trust which concerns owner-occupied housing, the expiration of the period described in paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of NRS 107.0805; or

             (3) Any extension of the applicable period by the beneficiary; or

      (b) The notice is rescinded before the sale is advertised.

      (Added to NRS by 1989, 1770; A 2009, 1758; 2015, 3327; 2017, 4097, 4105, 4106; 2019, 1368)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 2004–2019 · leading case: McDonald v. D.P. Alexander & Las Vegas Boulevard, LLC
McDonald v. D.P. Alexander & Las Vegas Boulevard, LLC (2005) nev · cites it 5× “§ 362 or pursuant to an order of a federal bankruptcy court under any other provision of the United States Bankruptcy Code for not less than 120 days following the mailing of notice to the surety or guarantor pursuant to subsection 1 of NRS 107.095. Thus, when a bankruptcy court…”
U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Res. Grp., LLC (2019) nev · cites it 2× “3d 4 , 8-9 (2014), we upheld on an abuse-of-discretion standard a district court's determination that a lender's "substantial compliance" with NRS 107.095 (2009) (amended by 2019 Nev. Stat.”
Pawlik v. Shyang-Fenn Deng (2018) nev · cites it 2× “3d 4 , 8 (2014) (holding substantial compliance is appropriate under NRS 107.095 ). However, we have not applied the same analysis to notice under NRS Chapter 271, and we decline to do so now.”
Bonicamp v. Vazquez (2004) nev “§ 362 or pursuant to an order of a federal bankruptcy court under any other provision of the United States Bankruptcy Code for not less than 120 days following the mailing of notice to the surety or guarantor pursuant to subsection 1 of NRS 107.095. (j) To collect any debt, or…”
Schleining v. Cap One, Inc. (2014) nev · cites it 53× “453 and NRS 107.095 in the context of a lender's claim for a deficiency judgment against a guarantor.”
Dayco Funding Corp. v. Mona, Jr. (2018) nev · cites it 9× “080(4)(a), and NRS 107.095 because Dayco did not send any foreclosure notices to Norman's last known address, namely the Wall Street address or the Main Street address.”
PAWLIK VS. DENG (2018) nev · cites it 4× “3d 4, 8 (2014) (holding substantial compliance is appropriate under NRS 107.095). However, we have not applied the same analysis to notice under NRS Chapter 271, and we decline to do so now.”
U.S. BANK NAT'L ASS'N ND VS. RESOURCES GRP., LLC (2019) nev · cites it 4× “3d 4, 8-9 (2014), we upheld on an abuse-of-discretion standard a district court's determination that a lender's "substantial compliance with NRS 107.095 (2009) (amended by 2019 Nev. Stat.”
Ln Mgmt. LLC Series 5984 Lingering Breeze v. the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., N.A. (2017) nev · cites it 2× “In Schleining, this court stated that NRS 107.095's notice requirements can be fulfilled through substantial compliance because "the purpose of NRS 'At the time of the foreclosure sale, NRS Chapter 116 required application of the provisions of NRS 107.”
PAWLIK VS. DENG (2018) nev · cites it 2× “3d 4 , 8 (2014) (holding substantial compliance is appropriate under NRS 107.095). However, we have not applied the same analysis to notice under NRS Chapter 271, and we decline to do so now.”
Lavi v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (2014) nev “At roughly the same time, BB&T recorded a notice of default and election to sell the property, notifying Lavi as required by NRS 107.095. Lavi understood that BB&T sought judgment against him for the post-foreclosure deficiency on the guaranteed note.”
Lavi v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (2014) nev “At roughly the same time, BB&T recorded a notice of default and election to sell the property, notifying Lavi as required by NRS 107.095. Lavi understood that BB&T sought judgment against him for the post-foreclosure deficiency on the guaranteed note.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.095(1) — 1 case
McDonald v. D.P. Alexander & Las Vegas Boulevard, LLC (2005) nev “§ 362 or pursuant to an order of a federal bankruptcy court under any other provision of the United States Bankruptcy Code for not less than 120 days following the mailing of notice to the surety or guarantor pursuant to subsection 1 of NRS 107.095. Thus, when a bankruptcy court…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.095(2) — 1 case
Dayco Funding Corp. v. Mona, Jr. (2018) nev “080(4)(a), and NRS 107.095 because Dayco did not send any foreclosure notices to Norman's last known address, namely the Wall Street address or the Main Street address.”
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.