Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

96 Nev. 12

Love v. Wells

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided January 3, 1980

Nevada Supreme Court · decided 1980-01-03

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1988

Relies on American Card Co. v. H. M. H. Co. · McCorquodale v. Holiday, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1980-01-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*13OPINION

Per Curiam:

¶2The issue in the district court was priority in competing claims to a 1974 Cadillac automobile. The third party claimant, Love, claimed priority due to a perfected security interest. The plaintiff, Wells, claimed priority as a judgment lien creditor. The district court ruled that Love did not have an enforceable security interest since NRS 104.9203 was not complied with in that the financing statement offered to show a security interest did not contain language creating a security interest. McCorquodale v. Holiday, Inc., 90 Nev. 67, 518 P.2d 1097 (1974); American Card Co. v. H.M.H. Co., 196 A.2d 150 (R.I. 1963).

¶3The record fully supports that determination.

¶4Affirmed.

/96/nev/12 · .json · Public domain