Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 40 - ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS IN PARTICULAR CASES CONCERNING PROPERTY

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.090

Action by person in adverse possession: Verified complaint; defendants; notice of pending litigation

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 40.090  Action by person in adverse possession: Verified complaint; defendants; notice of pending litigation.

      1.  An action may be brought to determine the adverse claims to and clouds upon title to real property by a person who, personally or in combination with the person’s predecessors in interest, has been in the actual, exclusive and adverse possession of such property continuously for more than 15 years prior to the filing of the complaint, claiming to own the same in fee, or by any other freehold estate, against the whole world, and who has, personally or through the person’s predecessors in interest, paid all taxes of every kind levied or assessed and due against the property during the period of 5 years next preceding the filing of the complaint, except that where clouds upon title to real property have been created by such person, and the action is brought to remove such clouds, or any of them, such period of actual, exclusive and adverse possession of such property shall be for more than 10 years. The action shall be commenced by the filing of a verified complaint averring the matters above enumerated.

      2.  The complaint must include as defendants in such action, in addition to such persons as appear of record to have some claim, all other persons who are known, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence could be known, to plaintiff to have some claim to an estate, interest, right, title, lien or cloud in or on the land described in the complaint adverse to plaintiff’s ownership; and the complaint may also include as defendants any and all other persons, unknown, claiming any estate, right, title, interest or lien in such lands, or cloud upon the title of plaintiff thereto; and the plaintiff may describe such unknown defendants in the complaint as follows: “Also all other persons unknown claiming any right, title, estate, lien or interest in the real property described in the complaint adverse to plaintiff’s ownership, or any cloud upon plaintiff’s title thereto.”

      3.  Within 10 days after the filing of the complaint, plaintiff shall file or cause to be filed in the office of the county recorder of each county where the property, or any part thereof, is situated, a notice of the pendency of the action containing the matters required by NRS 14.010.

      [1911 CPA § 580; RL § 5522; NCL § 9069]—(NRS A 1965, 613; 2023, 600)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1960–2022 · leading case: White Pine Lumber Co. v. City of Reno
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
White Pine Lumber Co. v. City of Reno (1990) nev · cites it 5× “We address only the issue concerning the applicable limitations period, however, and hold that the fifteen-year period found in NRS 40.090 applies in “takings” actions. 1 *780 A majority of courts that have considered the issue have applied the adverse possessions statute rather…”
Dayton Valley Investors, LLC v. Union Pacific Railroad (2009) nvd · cites it 4× “150 “allow a party to assert his possession against a known claimant,” while Nev.Rev.Stat. § 40.090 “allows a party to assert his possession against all claimants known or unknown.”
Potts v. Vokits (1985) nev · cites it 2× “150 allow a party to assert his possession against a known claimant, while NRS 40.090 allows a party to assert his possession against all claimants known or unknown.”
Crumbaker v. Kelly (1979) nev · cites it 6× “772-13">Appellants contend: (1) a mortgagee in possession cannot hold real property adversely to the mortgagor without a clear repudiation of the mortgage and that such repudiation was not shown by the evidence in this case, (2) chapter 40 of the Nevada Revised Statutes rather…”
Zubieta v. Tarner (1960) nev · cites it 4× “Subsection 1 of NRS 40.090 provides: “An action may be brought to determine the adverse claims to and clouds upon title to real property by a person who, by himself, or by himself and his predecessors in interest, has been in the actual, exclusive and adverse possession of such…”
Gardner v. Stager (1995) nvd “MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS The Gardners filed this suit in the state court in Elko, seeking to “quiet title,” under NRS 40.090(2), to “grazing rights” and “water rights” in the Humboldt National Forest.”
Lanigir v. Arden (1966) nev “070, or NRS 40.090; O’Banion v. Simpson, <a href="/opinion/8083012/obanion-v-simpson/" aria-description="Citation for case: O&#x27;Banion v.”
Roy v. Lancaster (1991) nev “” NRS 40.090(2). We believe respondents, as plaintiffs below, were aware, or should have been aware through the exercise of reasonable diligence, of the United States’ interest in the subject property.”
Brundy v. Bramlet (1985) nev · cites it 4× “The lower court found that water assessments are “taxes assessed” against the subject property, which an adverse possessor must pay in order to satisfy the requirements of NRS 40.090 or NRS 11.150. 1 The court concluded that, because respondent had paid the water assessments…”
Triplett v. David H. Fulstone Co. (1993) nev “The district court concluded that the Fulstones had adversely possessed the property under the requirements of NRS 40.090. The Tripletts have appealed these determinations.”
Nat'L Gold Mining Corp. Vs. Hygrade Gold Co. Ltd. C/W 78984 (2021) nev · cites it 6× “The district court concluded that title should quiet in Hygrade&#x27;s favor pursuant to NRS 40.090 because it presented sufficient evidence that its predecessors-in-interest adversely possessed the claims as to all known and unknown claimants for the requisite period of time.”
Nat'L Gold Mining Corp. Vs. Hygrade Gold Co. Ltd. C/W 78984 (2021) nev · cites it 6× “The district court concluded that title should quiet in Hygrade&#x27;s favor pursuant to NRS 40.090 because it presented sufficient evidence that its predecessors-in-interest adversely possessed the claims as to all known and unknown claimants for the requisite period of time.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.090(1) — 10 cases
Hunter v. Gang (2016) nevapp
Hunter v. Gang (2016) nev
HUNTER VS. GANG C/W 63804 (2016) nev
HUNTER VS. GANG C/W 59691 (2016) nev
HUNTER VS. GANG C/W 63804 (2016) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.090(2) — 2 cases
Gardner v. Stager (1995) nvd “MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS The Gardners filed this suit in the state court in Elko, seeking to “quiet title,” under NRS 40.090(2), to “grazing rights” and “water rights” in the Humboldt National Forest.”
Roy v. Lancaster (1991) nev “” NRS 40.090(2). We believe respondents, as plaintiffs below, were aware, or should have been aware through the exercise of reasonable diligence, of the United States’ interest in the subject property.”
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.