Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 99.040 (2026)

Interest rate when not fixed by express contract for certain types of transactions

✓ current as of July 2026

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

NRS 99.040 Interest rate when not fixed by express contract for certain types of transactions.

1. When there is no express contract in writing fixing a different rate of interest, interest must be allowed at a rate equal to the prime rate at the largest bank in Nevada, as ascertained by the Commissioner of Financial Institutions, on January 1 or July 1, as the case may be, immediately preceding the date of the transaction, plus 2 percent, upon all money from the time it becomes due, in the following cases:

(a) Upon contracts, express or implied, other than book accounts.

(b) Upon the settlement of book or store accounts from the day on which the balance is ascertained.

(d) Upon wages or salary, if it is unpaid when due, after demand therefor has been made.

Ê The rate must be adjusted accordingly on each January 1 and July 1 thereafter until the judgment is satisfied.

2. The provisions of this section do not apply to money owed pursuant to chapter 624 of NRS which is governed by the provisions of NRS 624.630.

3. As used in this section, “book account” means a detailed statement which:

(a) Constitutes the principal record of one or more transactions between a debtor and a creditor arising out of a contract or some fiduciary relationship;

(b) Shows the debits and credits in connection with that contract or fiduciary relationship and shows against whom and in favor of whom entries are made;

(d) Is kept in a reasonably permanent form and manner:

(1) In a bound book;

(2) On a sheet or sheets fastened in a book or to backing but detachable therefrom;

(3) On a card or cards of a permanent character; or

(4) In any other reasonably permanent form and manner.

[4:34:1861; A 1887, 82; 1917, 351; 1919 RL § 2499; NCL § 4322]—(NRS A 1979, 830; 1981, 1859; 1983, 426; 1987, 558, 940; 2001, 1625; 2005, 1735, 1856)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 94 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case: State Drywall, Inc. v. Rhodes Design & Dev., 127 P.3d 1082 (Nev. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Drywall, Inc. v. Rhodes Design & Dev., 127 P.3d 1082 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 23× “9 Because this case involves a contractual amount for which an ascertainable due date exists, NRS 99.040, not NRS 17.130(2), applies. Prejudgment interest on contractual payments after suit and before trial We now turn to whether State Drywall should have been awarded…”

Kerala Props., Inc. v. Familian, 137 P.3d 1146 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 18× “The parties agreed that the applicable prejudgment interest statute was NRS 99.040, which governs contract cases.”

Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc., 132 P.3d 1022 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 5× “The Albioses opposed the motion and sought to increase the interest rate used in the court's calculation, arguing that interest should have been calculated in accordance with NRS 99.040. Horizon then withdrew its motion.”

M.C. Multi-Fam. Dev., L.L.C. v. Crestdale Assocs., Ltd., 193 P.3d 536 (Nev. 2008). · cites it 4× “Crest-dale Associates further argues that it was entitled to prejudgment interest under NRS 99.040. 27 *916 We review a district court’s decisions concerning attorney fees and prejudgment interest for an abuse of discretion.”

Wilson v. Pac. Maxon, Inc., 714 P.2d 1001 (Nev. 1986). · cites it 18× “Further, we note that some of the language in our prior opinion may be read to indicate that NRS 99.040 is purely a prejudgment interest statute.”

Rust v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 747 P.2d 1380 (Nev. 1987). · cites it 2× “CONCLUSION I would reverse the judgment of the district court and remand, with instructions to *1386 return the case to the School District Board of Trustees so that Rust would receive reimbursement of all salary and benefits, including pension rights, due to him from October…”

Schoepe v. Pac. Silver Corp., 893 P.2d 388 (Nev. 1995). · cites it 10× “In this appeal, Schoepe argues that the district court erred because (1) it failed to award statutory interest on the rent amount pursuant to NRS 99.040; (2) it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing upon remand; (3) its determination of rental value was not supported by…”

Alutiiq Int'l Solutions, LLC v. OIC Marianas Ins., 149 F. Supp. 3d 1208 (D. Nev. 2016). · cites it 4× “93 Alutiiq argues that the defendants rely on the wrong statute when claiming that the service date is the trigger; the trigger dgte for interest in this case is the date OIC failed to pay under the performance bond, which is June 4, 2010, because there is a contract and, thus,…”

State, Dep't of Human Resources v. Fowler, 858 P.2d 375 (Nev. 1993). · cites it 6× “Prejudgment Interest In its judgment, the district court stated that Fowler was “entitled to interest upon the back wages commencing from the time the wages became due and owing to him, and the interest should be assessed on each of those installments, at the legal rate…”

Allstate Ins. v. Thorpe, 170 P.3d 989 (Nev. 2007). · cites it 2× “If the approved claim is not paid within that period, the insurer shall pay interest on the claim at the rate of interest established pursuant to NRS 99.040. The interest must be calculated from the date the payment is due until the claim is paid.”

Bates v. Chronister, 691 P.2d 865 (Nev. 1984). · cites it 3× “Interest The jurors had been instructed that if they found for the Bateses they could award interest on the principal amount from December 1, 1980, until the present time at the rate of 12%. The jury’s verdict regarding the interest award, however, was ambiguous.”

Paradise Homes, Inc. v. Cent. Sur. & Ins. Corp., 437 P.2d 78 (Nev. 1968). · cites it 4× “” See also 1919 RL § 2499; NCL § 4322; NRS 99.040. This court has construed these statutes in many cases, allowing pre-judgment interest on occasions but generally allowing interest only from the date of judgment.”

Show all 94 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 99.040(1) — 35 cases

State Drywall, Inc. v. Rhodes Design & Dev., 127 P.3d 1082 (Nev. 2006). “9 Because this case involves a contractual amount for which an ascertainable due date exists, NRS 99.040, not NRS 17.130(2), applies. Prejudgment interest on contractual payments after suit and before trial We now turn to whether State Drywall should have been awarded…”

Kerala Props., Inc. v. Familian, 137 P.3d 1146 (Nev. 2006). “The parties agreed that the applicable prejudgment interest statute was NRS 99.040, which governs contract cases.”

Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc., 132 P.3d 1022 (Nev. 2006). “The Albioses opposed the motion and sought to increase the interest rate used in the court's calculation, arguing that interest should have been calculated in accordance with NRS 99.040. Horizon then withdrew its motion.”

Southdown, Inc. v. McGinnis, 510 P.2d 636 (Nev. 1973).

Alutiiq Int'l Solutions, LLC v. OIC Marianas Ins., 149 F. Supp. 3d 1208 (D. Nev. 2016). “93 Alutiiq argues that the defendants rely on the wrong statute when claiming that the service date is the trigger; the trigger dgte for interest in this case is the date OIC failed to pay under the performance bond, which is June 4, 2010, because there is a contract and, thus,…”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 99.040(1)(a) — 7 cases

Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Nevada Vs. Gitter c/w 69208/69961, 2017 NV 18 (Nev. 2017).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 99.040(1)(c) — 4 cases

Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Nevada Vs. Gitter c/w 69208/69961, 2017 NV 18 (Nev. 2017).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 99.040(1)(d) — 1 case

Scammell (D. Nev. 2025).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 99.040(2)(b) — 1 case

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 99.040(3) — 2 cases

First Interstate Bank of Nevada v. Green, 694 P.2d 496 (Nev. 1985).

Day v. Day, 417 P.2d 914 (Nev. 1966).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 99.040(5) — 2 cases

Hardison v. Carmany, 504 P.2d 1 (Nev. 1972).

Mead v. State Dep't of Health, Welfare & Rehab., Servs. to the Blind Divison, 532 P.2d 611 (Nev. 1975).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 99.040(c) — 1 case

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 99.040(l) — 1 case

Kerala Props., Inc. v. Familian, 137 P.3d 1146 (Nev. 2006). “The parties agreed that the applicable prejudgment interest statute was NRS 99.040, which governs contract cases.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 99.040(l)(a) — 3 cases

M.C. Multi-Fam. Dev., L.L.C. v. Crestdale Assocs., Ltd., 193 P.3d 536 (Nev. 2008). “Crest-dale Associates further argues that it was entitled to prejudgment interest under NRS 99.040. 27 *916 We review a district court’s decisions concerning attorney fees and prejudgment interest for an abuse of discretion.”

Sellers v. Fourth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Elko, 71 P.3d 495 (Nev. 2003).

James Hardie Gypsum (Nevada) Inc. v. Inquipco, 929 P.2d 903 (Nev. 1996).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 99.040(l)(d) — 1 case

State, Dep't of Human Resources v. Fowler, 858 P.2d 375 (Nev. 1993). “Prejudgment Interest In its judgment, the district court stated that Fowler was “entitled to interest upon the back wages commencing from the time the wages became due and owing to him, and the interest should be assessed on each of those installments, at the legal rate…”

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.