Bader Enterprises, Inc. v. Becker

Nevada Supreme Court

Bader Enterprises, Inc. v. Becker

720 P.2d 1232, 102 Nev. 339, 1986 Nev. LEXIS 1308

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedJune 27, 1986

DocketNo. 15036

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 720 P.2d 1232 (Bader Enterprises, Inc. v. Becker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bader Enterprises, Inc. v. Becker, 720 P.2d 1232, 102 Nev. 339, 1986 Nev. LEXIS 1308 (Neb. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON REHEARING

Per Curiam:

On June 26, 1985, this court issued an Order Dismissing Appeal in the case of Bader Enterprises, Inc. v. Ernest A. Becker dba Charleston Heights Shopping Center. Bader has petitioned for a rehearing, contending that this court erred in sustaining the district court’s finding that Becker’s claim to certain attached equipment was superior to Bader’s. NRAP 40. We grant rehearing for the limited purpose of considering that contention.

The district court’s finding that Becker’s claim to the attached equipment was superior to Bader’s was based upon its interpretation of a ground lease and security agreement. The district court’s interpretation “arose solely from the four corners of the written instrument[s] rather than from any extrinsic evidence as to the meaning of the terms used.” Caldwell v. Consolidated Realty, 99 [340]*340Nev. 635, 638, 668 P.2d 284 (1983). Consequently, we are bound neither by the district court’s interpretation of the ground lease and security agreement nor by the district court’s finding that Becker’s claim to the attached equipment was superior to Bader’s.

Under the terms of the ground lease, Bader’s claim to the attachment equipment was superior to Becker’s. In the ground lease, Becker specifically disclaimed any interest in the attached equipment. In addition, the ground lease gave Bader the right to remove the attached equipment. The district court’s finding that Becker’s claim to the attached equipment was superior to Bader’s was incorrect. This court erred in sustaining the district court’s finding. Accordingly, we modify our prior Order Dismissing Appeal and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.¹

Mowbray, C. J., and Springer, Gunderson, and Steffen, JJ., and Foley, D. J.,² concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION ON REHEARING

Per Curiam:

On June 26, 1985, this court issued an Order Dismissing Appeal in the case of Bader Enterprises, Inc. v. Ernest A. Becker dba Charleston Heights Shopping Center. Bader has petitioned for a rehearing, contending that this court erred in sustaining the district court’s finding that Becker’s claim to certain attached equipment was superior to Bader’s. NRAP 40. We grant rehearing for the limited purpose of considering that contention.

The district court’s finding that Becker’s claim to the attached equipment was superior to Bader’s was based upon its interpretation of a ground lease and security agreement. The district court’s interpretation “arose solely from the four corners of the written instrument[s] rather than from any extrinsic evidence as to the meaning of the terms used.” Caldwell v. Consolidated Realty, 99 [340]*340Nev. 635, 638, 668 P.2d 284 (1983). Consequently, we are bound neither by the district court’s interpretation of the ground lease and security agreement nor by the district court’s finding that Becker’s claim to the attached equipment was superior to Bader’s.

Under the terms of the ground lease, Bader’s claim to the attachment equipment was superior to Becker’s. In the ground lease, Becker specifically disclaimed any interest in the attached equipment. In addition, the ground lease gave Bader the right to remove the attached equipment. The district court’s finding that Becker’s claim to the attached equipment was superior to Bader’s was incorrect. This court erred in sustaining the district court’s finding. Accordingly, we modify our prior Order Dismissing Appeal and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.¹

Mowbray, C. J., and Springer, Gunderson, and Steffen, JJ., and Foley, D. J.,² concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

720 P.2d 1232, 102 Nev. 339, 1986 Nev. LEXIS 1308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bader-enterprises-inc-v-becker-nev-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack