Butwinick v. Hepner, 291 P.3d 119

Respondents acquired appellants’ rights and interests in the district court action at a sheriff’s sale after a judgment execution.
The underlying action involved breach of contract, fraud, and related counterclaims by appellants opposing respondents’ purchase of stores.
The district court ruled for respondents, rescinding the agreement and awarding damages; counterclaims were denied.
Appellants did not obtain a stay of execution; the writ allowed execution on the personal property of appellant Todd Butwinick and related claims.
Respondents moved to substitute as real parties in interest and dismiss the appeal, asserting rights to appellants’ defenses at sale.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a judgment creditor substitute and dismiss by executing on defenses?	Respondents acquired appellants’ defenses at sale.	Defenses are not subject to execution as personal property.	No; defenses cannot be executed as personal property; motion denied.
Does a 'thing in action' include a party’s defenses to an action?	Rights to defenses are transferable as part of the action.	Defenses are not assignable rights.	Defenses are not within 'thing in action'; cannot be bought to foreclose appellate rights.

Gallegos v. Malco Enterprises of Nevada, 127 Nev. 579 (2011) (rights of action held by a judgment debtor are personal property subject to execution)
Achrem v. Expressway Plaza Ltd., 112 Nev. 737 (1996) (rights to a tort action are not assignable)
Maxwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 102 Nev. 502 (1986) (rights of action based on fraud are not assignable)
Prosky v. Clark, 32 Nev. 441 (1910) (rights of action based on fraud are not assignable; but are personal to the wronged)