Rule-Dale Enterprises, Inc. v. Kozlowski

675 P.2d 994, 100 Nev. 53, 1984 Nev. LEXIS 319
Nevada Supreme Court·Decided January 25, 1984·No. No. 14784·Published

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal from a summary judgment denying the plaintiff a deficiency judgment. Appellant contends that it is excepted from the notice requirements for establishing a vehicle’s residual value because the lease involved in the present case provides for an alternative method of determining residual value under NRS 100.145(1). We disagree.

NRS 100.145(1) provides a statutory method of establishing a vehicle’s residual value where the parties have not otherwise agreed in writing on that value or upon another method of establishing that value. It is apparent that the legislature did not intend for the original lease to be substituted as an agreement between the parties for determining residual value. Such agreements refer only to writings executed by the parties after the lease has gone into effect.

[54]*54Since the lessor has failed to notify the lessee of its intention to establish residual value as required by NRS 100.155, the lessor is precluded from recovering any deficiency. NRS 100.175. We affirm the district court’s granting of the summary judgment.

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

Rule-Dale Enterprises, Inc. v. Kozlowski, 675 P.2d 994, 100 Nev. 53, 1984 Nev. LEXIS 319 (Neb. 1984).

675 P.2d 994 (Rule-Dale Enterprises, Inc. v. Kozlowski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

§ 100.145
Nevada § 100.145
§ 100.155
Nevada § 100.155
§ 100.175
Nevada § 100.175