JED Prop. v. Coastline RE Holdings NV Corp. (Nev. Supreme Ct. – Mar. 5, 2015)
To foreclose on real property in Las Vegas that was used to secure a debt by JED Property, LLC, Coastline RE Holdings recorded a notice of a trustee’s sale. The trustee’s sale was orally postponed three times before the property was sold, with the sale occurring on the date and at the place set by the third oral postponement.
Coastline initiated a civil action against JED. JED filed a counterclaim against Coastline asserting wrongful foreclosure because Coastline violated NRS 107.082(2) when it orally postponed the sale three times without effectuating a written notice of the sale’s time and place. Coastline then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that JED premised its counterclaims on an erroneous interpretation of NRS 107.082(2). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Coastline upon concluding that the three oral postponements did not trigger NRS 107.082(2)’s notice requirement because the sale occurred on the date set by the third oral postponement. JED appealed.
On appeal, JED argued that the district court’s reading of NRS 107.082(2) deviated from the statute’s plain meaning, which JED reads as requiring a written notice of new sale information upon the third oral postponement of the sale. Coastline contended that NRS 107.082(2) unambiguously permits three oral postponements of a sale and requires the notice of any new sale information only for postponements that follow the third oral postponement.
Citing NRS 107.082(2), the Nevada Supreme Court held that as long as the information regarding the sale’s date, time, and place remains the same after the third oral postponement, there is no new sale information to provide that would require a new notice. However, if the sale’s date, time, or location changes after the third oral postponement, then there is new sale information. Thus, if the sale’s date, time, or location changes after the third oral postponement, NRS 107.082(2) requires that this new sale information be noticed as provided in NRS 107.080(4).
The Court affirmed the district court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Coastline noting that JED failed to submit any evidence that the day, time, or place of the trustee’s sale in this case changed after the third postponement.