Savage Construction, Inc. v. Challenge-Cook Bros., Inc. (1986)
Citation: 102 Nev. 34, 714 P.2d 573 · Court: Supreme Court of Nevada · Decided: February 20, 1986 · Docket: 16215. Full opinion retrieved from OpenJurist, an unofficial reproduction. The prior Justia reader success is distinct from its later failed direct request; OpenJurist’s full opinion was also retrieved as a complete response body and preserved. Choice-of-law limit: the parties selected California law, which the Nevada court applied. This is not a source for current Nevada notice periods.
Facts
Creditor repossessed four cement mixers and bought them as sole bidder at a California auction. It resold them within two weeks at higher retail prices; at least one retail prospect had been negotiating before auction but was not notified of it. Trial court found auction commercially reasonable yet used retail proceeds to credit defendants in awarding a deficiency. 714 P.2d at 574–575.
Holding
Reversed and remanded for judgment for appellants and determination of costs/ fees if any. Sale was commercially unreasonable on the stated factors, particularly failure to advise identified potential buyers. The trial court’s mixing of a purportedly reasonable auction with later-retail-price credit was unsupported under the governing California law. Because that disposition resolved the appeal, the court did not reach the separate guaranty argument or the creditor’s cross-appeal. 714 P.2d at 575–576.
Reasoning
Court evaluated publicity quality, audience/readership, auction/retail prices, attendance and failure to contact known prospects. Price disparity alone was not dispositive, and a secured creditor buying at its own auction was not categorically prohibited; the combined circumstances were decisive. 714 P.2d at 574–576.
Practical impact
Preserve market-exposure and buyer-contact evidence in equipment dispositions. The opinion’s historical California publication requirement and no-deficiency consequence are not asserted as current Nevada rules; nevada module 12 uses separately retrieved Nevada Article 9 text. The case does not order every downstream equipment purchaser to return the goods. 714 P.2d at 574–576.
Good-law status
The holding is verified with its California choice-of-law limit, not certified as an exhaustive current Nevada-law statement. In Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 2227 Shadow Canyon, 133 Nev. 740, 405 P.3d 641 (2017), the court invokes Savage’s heightened scrutiny when the creditor buys at its own sale, but distinguishes Article 9 commercial reasonableness from HOA real-property foreclosure. Nationstar does not adopt the old California no-deficiency rule as Nevada law. Current Nevada Article 9 is separately verified in nevada. The full later opinion is preserved in the Nevada evidence directory; this targeted treatment review is not exhaustive. Full signed Nationstar opinion.
Applies in →
nevada · equipment-and-machinery · ucc-article-9-dispositions
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify current law and later treatment against primary sources and consult a licensed attorney before acting.