Component Systems v. District Court

9 Citing cases

  1. Sunamerica Investments v. Holman

    Case No. 1:02 CV 00060 TC (D. Utah Oct. 29, 2003)

    In re SLC Ltd. K., 152 B.R. 755 (Bankr. D. Utah 1993).Component Systems Corporation v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 692 P.2d 1296 (Nevada 1985).See discussion in Holman' s Dismissal Memorandum, page 14.

  2. Ainsworth v. Combined Ins. Co

    105 Nev. 237 (Nev. 1989)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that a justice is not disqualified for bias even though he referred to a party's attorney as the "loser" over 100 times in a response to motions

    We have carefully considered the matters set forth in Combined's latest proposed reply, and we conclude that, under the circumstances present here, Combined's reply may be made a part of the official record of this proceeding. See Component Systems v. District Court, 101 Nev. 76, 79 n. 2, 692 P.2d 1296, 1299 (1985). Accordingly, we hereby direct the clerk of this court to file that document.

  3. FBW Enterprises v. Victorio Co.

    821 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 2 times
    Stating that where decision creating new rule itself retroactively applied the court's new ruling, both state law and federal law mandate its retroactive application to pending cases

    The district court's refusal to extend to a guarantor the protection of Nevada's deficiency judgment statutes appears to have correctly reflected then-controlling decisions of the Nevada Supreme Court. Under prior law, the statutory provisions governing deficiency judgments did not apply to actions on guaranty contracts that were separate from the primary obligation. Component Systems Corporation v. District Court, 101 Nev. 76, 692 P.2d 1296 (1985); Thomas v. Valley Bank, 97 Nev. 320, 629 P.2d 1205 (1981); Manufacturers Traders Trust Co. v. District Court, 94 Nev. 551, 583 P.2d 444 (1978). After the briefs were submitted on this appeal, however, the Nevada Supreme Court expressly overruled those decisions.

  4. Lemus v. Burnham Painting Drywall Corp.

    2:06-CV-1158-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev. Sep. 4, 2007)   Cited 1 times

    Nevada law distinguishes between a guarantor and a surety. Component Sys. Corp. v. Eight Judicial Dist. Ct. of Nev., 692 P.2d 1296, 1299 (Nev. 1985). Under Nevada law, it is well settled that a surety, unlike a guarantor, is bound as an original promisor, and the obligee may thus principally seek recovery against the surety. See id. (citing Short v. Sinai, 50 Nev. 346, 259 P. 417 (Nev. 1927)); see also Glen Falls Ins. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank., 427 P.2d 1, 6 (Nev. 1967) (stating that a "surety is bound with his principal as original promisor; he is a debtor from the beginning, and must see that the debt is paid, and is held ordinarily to know every default of his principal").

  5. Lopez v. Pete King Nevada Corp.

    2:06-CV-1200-RCJ-LRL (D. Nev. Sep. 4, 2007)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that NRS 608.150 does not require a plaintiff to prove that a subcontractor is liable prior to seeking liability against a general contractor

    Nevada law distinguishes between a guarantor and a surety. Component Sys. Corp. v. Eight Judicial Dist. Ct. of Nev., 692 P.2d 1296, 1299 (Nev. 1985). Under Nevada law, it is well settled that a surety, unlike a guarantor, is bound as an original promisor, and the obligee may thus principally seek recovery against the surety. See id. (citing Short v. Sinai, 50 Nev. 346, 259 P. 417 (Nev. 1927)); see also Glen Falls Ins. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank., 427 P.2d 1, 6 (Nev. 1967) (stating that a "surety is bound with his principal as original promisor; he is a debtor from the beginning, and must see that the debt is paid, and is held ordinarily to know every default of his principal").

  6. SLC Ltd. V v. Bradford Group West, Inc. (In re SLC Ltd. V)

    152 B.R. 755 (Bankr. D. Utah 1993)   Cited 8 times
    Rejecting Shields because “the better reasoned state court decisions” do not follow it

    In some circumstances, a court may consider a guarantor to be a co-obligor of the underlying debt, thus precluding any proceeding against the guarantor without first foreclosing on the security. Ashton, 436 N.W.2d at 220; Component Sys. Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 101 Nev. 76, 692 P.2d 1296, 1299-1300 (1985) (applying and construing California law). But see Union Bank v. Gradsky, 265 Cal.App.2d 40, 71 Cal.Rptr. 64, 67 n. 3 (1968) (action against guarantor not violative of one-action rule when debtor specifically waives right). SLCV asserts that although Fisher and Kern are characterized as guarantors, they are really co-obligors because they were the only parties with sufficient financial strength to satisfy Bradford in the event of a default.

  7. Verreaux v. D'Onofrio

    108 Nev. 142 (Nev. 1992)   Cited 2 times

    "NRS Chapter 40 `provides a comprehensive scheme of creditor and debtor protection with respect to the foreclosure and sale of real property subject to security interests.'" Welburn v. District Court, 107 Nev. 105, 108, 806 P.2d 1045, 1047 (1991) (quoting Component Systems v. District Court, 101 Nev. 76, 82, 692 P.2d 1296, 1301 (1980)); see NRS 40.455 (deficiency judgment); cf. Key Bank v. Donnels, 106 Nev. 49, 51-52, 787 P.2d 382, 384 (1991); Sievers v. Diversified Mtg. Investors, 95 Nev. 811, 815, 603 P.2d 270, 273 (1979); Kish v. Bay Counties Title Guaranty Co., 254 Cal.App.2d 725 (Cal.Ct.App. 1967). This court stated in Welburn that Nevada deficiency actions do not significantly conflict with California's sovereignty and "Nevada has a strong interest in protecting the efficacy of the deficiency statute with respect to out of state owners of Nevada real property."

  8. Welburn v. District Court

    806 P.2d 1045 (Nev. 1991)   Cited 6 times

    Furthermore, it would be unreasonable and inequitable to grant the Bohmans the protection of Nevada's one action rule, which required petitioners to first seek satisfaction of the debt by the trustee's sale, See NRS 40.430(1), but to deny petitioners the right to apply for a deficiency judgment in Nevada following the trustee's sale. See generally Component Systems v. District Court, 101 Nev. 76, 82, 692 P.2d 1296, 1301 (1985) (quoting Keever v. Nicholas Beers Co., 96 Nev. 509, 512, 611 P.2d 1079, 1082 (1980) (NRS Chapter 40 "provides a comprehensive scheme of creditor and debtor protection with respect to the foreclosure and sale of real property subject to security interests"). The Bohmans' argument regarding which state's law should apply in the action below is not dispositive of the issue of jurisdiction.

  9. First Interstate Bank v. Shields

    102 Nev. 616 (Nev. 1987)   Cited 48 times
    Holding deficiency judgment legislation applicable to an action on a guaranty contract

    We disagree. Although we have previously held that the protection of the deficiency judgment legislation is inapplicable to an action on a guaranty contract (Component Systems Corp. v. District Court, 101 Nev. 76, 692 P.2d 1296 (1985); Manufacturers Traders Trust v. Dist. Ct., 94 Nev. 551, 583 P.2d 444 (1978); Thomas v. Valley Bank of Nevada, 97 Nev. 320, 629 P.2d 1205 (1981)), we are now convinced that it is unsound to deny guarantors the benefits of such legislation. For reasons hereafter expressed, we hereby disapprove and overrule our opinions in Manufacturers Traders Trust and Thomas to the extent they are inconsistent with our ruling in this case.