Malco Enterprises of Nevada, Inc. v. Century Towing (2018)
Unpublished order, No. 73934, July 27, 2018. The full six-page signed order affirming in part, reversing in part and remanding was retrieved from an unofficial host and preserved. It is targeted later treatment, not a substitute for two reported Nevada opinions or a binding published precedent.
Facts
Century towed Malco’s rental vehicle at police request. Ownership notices were unsigned or returned. Century bought the vehicle at its lien auction for $2,360 and resold it to the Janovitches for $13,512.50. Malco sued the tower and subsequent buyers. The district court entered summary judgment against Malco as to both. Full primary opinion, unofficial reproduction.
Complete holding
The appellate court reversed as to Century. Evidence that Century knew the owner’s correct physical address created a genuine factual issue concerning compliance with the demand-notice statute. Mailing to a post-office box was not a conclusive resolution on this record. The remand was not a final finding of liability or a holding that all returned mail invalidates a sale. Full primary opinion, unofficial reproduction.
It affirmed as to the subsequent innocent buyers. NRS 108.350 protects an innocent third-party purchaser even assuming an invalid lien or defective sale; the lienor bears the resulting loss. There was no evidence sufficient to defeat these buyers’ innocence. Footnote 6 distinguishes Alamo and national-tow-v-integrity-insurance-1986: neither decided the rights of an innocent subsequent purchaser acquiring before the owner asserted its claim. Full primary opinion, unofficial reproduction.
Footnote 4 cites National Tow on DMV notice and notes the absence of proof of compliance. Having reversed the tower’s judgment on the notice issue, the court did not reach the independent DMV-notice, sale-location/price or NRCP 56(f) discovery issues. Those issues are not additional adjudicated holdings. Complete order, pp. 1–6.
Present use and treatment boundary
The current NRS 108.350 still distinguishes innocent-third-party protection from the claimant’s liability. Use the current statutory conditions and transaction facts; do not treat this unpublished application as universal immunity. Current NRAP 36(c)(3) permits ordinary persuasive citation of Court of Appeals unpublished dispositions only if issued on or after August 15, 2024. This 2018 order does not meet that cutoff; subsection (c)(2)‘s same/related-case, preclusion and law-of-case rules are distinct. It is documented here as actual historical treatment, not offered as a generally citable persuasive authority. Current NRAP 36(c). The order’s reasoning and limitations were verified in full against the current statute and citation rule. No exhaustive later-treatment certificate is asserted; the affirmative unpublished-citation restriction is not an unread-holding gap.
Applies in →
nevada · motor-vehicles · towing-storage-and-mechanics-lien-sales
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify current statutes, procedural citation rules and purchaser facts with a licensed attorney.