SORO VS. DIST. CT. (AMERICA FIRST FED. CREDIT UNION)
2017 NV 107
| Nev. | 2017Background
- In 2002 America First loaned Soro and co-borrowers $2.9M secured by Mesquite, Nevada real property; the promissory note specified Utah law governed.
- Borrowers defaulted; America First purchased the property at a Nevada nonjudicial trustee’s sale in 2012, leaving a roughly $2.4M deficiency.
- America First filed a Nevada deficiency action within six months (Nevada’s NRS 40.455(1) limitation period).
- Soro moved to dismiss, arguing the parties’ Utah choice‑of‑law clause required application of Utah’s 3‑month antideficiency statute (Utah Code §57‑1‑32), which would bar the claim.
- The district court denied dismissal, concluding Utah’s statute does not apply extraterritorially; Nevada Supreme Court granted writ review to decide whether Nevada must follow the chosen state’s caselaw on extraterritoriality.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Soro) | Defendant's Argument (America First) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah’s 3‑month antideficiency statute applies to a Nevada deficiency action (extraterritoriality) | Utah choice‑of‑law requires applying Utah §57‑1‑32, which bars the claim as time‑barred | Utah §57‑1‑32 does not reach extraterritorially to bar a Nevada action; Nevada’s 6‑month rule controls | Held: Utah’s statute does not apply extraterritorially here; claim not time‑barred |
| Whether Nevada courts must follow the chosen state’s caselaw on a statute’s extraterritorial reach before independently construing it | Court should independently construe Utah statute under Nevada precedent | Nevada must defer to the chosen state’s controlling decisions about that statute’s extraterritorial reach when party has an enforceable choice‑of‑law clause | Held: Nevada courts must follow the chosen state’s caselaw on extraterritoriality when it exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Key Bank of Alaska v. Donnels, 787 P.2d 382 (Alaska statute did not apply extraterritorially to bar Nevada deficiency action)
- Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Windhaven & Tollway, LLC, 347 P.3d 1038 (framework for analyzing whether an antideficiency statute bars an out‑of‑state foreclosure deficiency action)
- Mardian v. Michael & Wendy Greenberg Family Trust, 359 P.3d 109 (choice‑of‑law provisions bind parties to chosen state’s limitations and related caselaw in deficiency actions)
- Bullington v. Mize, 478 P.2d 500 (Utah Supreme Court held Utah’s trust‑deed statutory scheme does not operate extraterritorially)