Last week's Nevada Supreme Court Civil Opinions
Sorry for the delay . . .
In Cox v. Dist. Ct., the Nevada Supreme Court held that a judicial sale to a bona fide purchaser is not immune from appellate reversal when the court conducting the sale had not jurisdiction to do so. Here, the court that conducted the sale had not jurisdiction due to the expiration of the five year rule, and therefore, the appellate reversal of the sale stands.
In M.C. Multi-Family Dev. v. Crestdale Assocs., the Nevada Supreme Court adopted California’s definition of “property rights” and the Restatement (Second) of Torts rule defining conversion of “intangible personal property,” and expressly rejected the notion that personal property must be tangible in order to give rise to a conversion claim. At issue was whether a contractor’s license could be converted through unauthorized use of the license. The Court held that a license can be converted, even though unauthorized use by one party does not prevent use by the lawful owner.
The Court determined that “a property right exists when (1) there is an interest capable of precise definition, (2) the interest is capable of exclusive possession or control, and (3) the putative owner has established a legitimate claim to exclusivity.” The Court also adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 242, which states, “[w]here there is conversion of a document in which intangible rights are merged, the damages include the value of such rights.”
Because the District court had directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, finding that a license could not be converted, the cause was remanded.
