Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 11 - LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.090 (2026)

Peaceable entry; when not valid as claim

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 11.090  Peaceable entry; when not valid as claim.  No peaceable entry upon real estate shall be deemed sufficient and valid as a claim, unless an action be commenced by the plaintiff for possession within 1 year from the making of such entry, or within 5 years from the time when the right to bring such action accrued.

      [1911 CPA § 12; RL § 4954; NCL § 8511]

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2016–2024 · leading case: U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 376 F. Supp. 3d 1085 (D. Nev. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 376 F. Supp. 3d 1085 (D. Nev. 2019). · cites it 3× “1113, this claim is one founded on a liability created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture, and it is subject to the three-year statute of limitations in NRS 11.090(3)(a). Because the bank waited more than four years after this alleged statutory violation to file this…”
Csa Dev., LLC v. Bryant C/W 68883 (Nev. 2016). · cites it 4× “Because the Bryants have continually possessed the property for many years, CSA argues that the Bryants did not timely file their prescriptive easement claim pursuant to NRS 11.090. NRS 11.090 states that "kilo peaceable entry upon real estate shall be deemed sufficient and…”
Csa Dev., LLC v. Bryant C/W 68883 (Nev. 2016). · cites it 4× “Because the Bryants have continually possessed the property for many years, CSA argues that the Bryants did not timely file their prescriptive easement claim pursuant to NRS 11.090. NRS 11.090 states that "kilo peaceable entry upon real estate shall be deemed sufficient and…”
LaPena v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't (D. Nev. 2023). · cites it 3× “” NRS 11.090 (emphasis added). By contrast, no reference to an accrual date is 23 present in section 11.”
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Diamond Point Homeowners Ass'n (D. Nev. 2019). · cites it 2× “NRS § 11.090(3)(a). Defendants, therefore, claim 4 that BANA’s claims are time-barred.”
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Pac. Sunset Vill. Homeowners Ass'n (D. Nev. 2019). · cites it 2× “NRS § 11.090(3)(a). Defendants, therefore, claim 28 that Deutsche Bank’s claims are time-barred.”
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (D. Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “7 Still,I also cannot agree with SFR that the bank’s claim is subject tothe three-year 8 statute of limitations in NRS 11.090(3)(a).28 That statutegoverns actions “upon a liability 9 created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture.”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Tr. for Park Place Sec., Inc. v. Fid. Nat'l Title Grp., Inc. (D. Nev. 2021). · cites it 2× “See NRS § 11.090(2)(d) (providing a four-year limitation 4 period for NDTPA claims and stating that the “cause of action shall be deemed to accrue when 5 the aggrieved party discovers, or by the exercise of due diligence should have discovered, the 6 facts constituting the…”
Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Vs. 4029 Grant Hill Ave Tr. (Nev. 2019). “The holding in SFR Investments was based on the interpretation of the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (UCIOA), not on NRS 11.090(1)(b), and the UCIOA makes clear that its use of "action" includes a nonjudicial foreclosure.”
Jp Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Vs Ying-Man (Nev. 2019). “The holding in SFR Investments was based on the interpretation of the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (UCIOA), not on NRS 11.090(1)(b), and the UCIOA makes clear that its use of "action" includes a nonjudicial foreclosure.”
Marchai B.T. Vs. Beacon St. Hoa (Nev. 2019). “The holding in SFR Investments was based on the interpretation of the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (UCIOA), not on NRS 11.090(1)(b), and the UCIOA makes clear that its use of "action" includes a nonjudicial foreclosure.”
Sfr Inv.'S Pool 1, Llc Vs. Carrington Mortg. Servs., Llc (Nev. 2020). “Alternatively, the district court determined in its amended judgment that even if NRS 11.090(3)(a)'s 3-year limitation period governed respondent's tender "claim," respondent's June 2017 amended answer should relate back to its predecessor's May 2015 answer.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.090(1) — 1 case
Radecki v. Bank of Am., N.A. (D. Nev. 2024).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.090(1)(b) — 3 cases
Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Vs. 4029 Grant Hill Ave Tr. (Nev. 2019). “The holding in SFR Investments was based on the interpretation of the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (UCIOA), not on NRS 11.090(1)(b), and the UCIOA makes clear that its use of "action" includes a nonjudicial foreclosure.”
Jp Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Vs Ying-Man (Nev. 2019). “The holding in SFR Investments was based on the interpretation of the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (UCIOA), not on NRS 11.090(1)(b), and the UCIOA makes clear that its use of "action" includes a nonjudicial foreclosure.”
Marchai B.T. Vs. Beacon St. Hoa (Nev. 2019). “The holding in SFR Investments was based on the interpretation of the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (UCIOA), not on NRS 11.090(1)(b), and the UCIOA makes clear that its use of "action" includes a nonjudicial foreclosure.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.090(2)(d) — 1 case
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Tr. for Park Place Sec., Inc. v. Fid. Nat'l Title Grp., Inc. (D. Nev. 2021). “See NRS § 11.090(2)(d) (providing a four-year limitation 4 period for NDTPA claims and stating that the “cause of action shall be deemed to accrue when 5 the aggrieved party discovers, or by the exercise of due diligence should have discovered, the 6 facts constituting the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.090(3) — 1 case
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Antigua Maint. Corp. (D. Nev. 2021).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.090(3)(a) — 9 cases
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 376 F. Supp. 3d 1085 (D. Nev. 2019). “1113, this claim is one founded on a liability created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture, and it is subject to the three-year statute of limitations in NRS 11.090(3)(a). Because the bank waited more than four years after this alleged statutory violation to file this…”
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Diamond Point Homeowners Ass'n (D. Nev. 2019). “NRS § 11.090(3)(a). Defendants, therefore, claim 4 that BANA’s claims are time-barred.”
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Pac. Sunset Vill. Homeowners Ass'n (D. Nev. 2019). “NRS § 11.090(3)(a). Defendants, therefore, claim 28 that Deutsche Bank’s claims are time-barred.”
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (D. Nev. 2020). “7 Still,I also cannot agree with SFR that the bank’s claim is subject tothe three-year 8 statute of limitations in NRS 11.090(3)(a).28 That statutegoverns actions “upon a liability 9 created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture.”
Sfr Inv.'S Pool 1, Llc Vs. Carrington Mortg. Servs., Llc (Nev. 2020). “Alternatively, the district court determined in its amended judgment that even if NRS 11.090(3)(a)'s 3-year limitation period governed respondent's tender "claim," respondent's June 2017 amended answer should relate back to its predecessor's May 2015 answer.”
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.