Love v. Wells
This text of 604 P.2d 362 (Love v. Wells) 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.
Opinion
[13]*13OPINION
The 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).
The record fully supports that determination.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
604 P.2d 362, 96 Nev. 12, 1980 Nev. LEXIS 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/love-v-wells-nev-1980.