• Request a Consult: (702) 869-8801 | Online Consults | Payments |
logo-whitelogo-whitelogo-whitelogo-white
  • Our Firm
    • About Black & Wadhams
    • Locations
    • Testimonials
    • FAQs
    • Blog
  • Practice Areas
    • Administrative Law
    • Bankruptcy Law
    • Cannabis Law
    • Commercial Law
    • Construction Law
    • Corporate & Transactional Law
    • Energy Law
    • Estate Planning
    • Government Relations
    • Health Care Law
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • General and Civil Litigation
    • Arbitration & Mediation Services
    • Personal Injury
    • Natural Resources
    • Real Property Law
    • Business Law
  • Our Team
  • General Counsel
  • Blog
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
    • Client Intake
    • Online Legal Consultations
    • Make a Payment
✕

Dobran v. Bunch

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Civil Litigation
  • Dobran v. Bunch

Dobran v. Bunch, 125 Nevada Advance Opinion Number 3Supreme Court in Carson City, NV6

On September 10, 2009, the Nevada Supreme Court adopted the Restatement (Third) of Suretyship and Guaranty section 14 (1966) on interpretation of guaranty agreements, at the same time as it abandoned the prior Nevada distinction between a guarantor who was compensated and one who is not, and abandoned the rule that a guaranty agreement must be strictly construed.  The Court has ruled that general contract interpretation principles will apply and a guarantor will not be responsible for anything beyond what it clearly agreed to pay.

In this case, a company loaned money to five affiliated companies and demanded that their principal provide a personal guaranty.  The affiliated companies then challenged the loans as usurious in a California court.  The case was removed to Federal Court, and transferred to the U.S. District Court of Nevada, where the judge ruled that since Nevada law should apply to the loan, and Nevada has no usury law, Defendant/Lender should win.  A year later, the company which lent the money, sued the principal in Nevada State District Court on the guaranty, seeking to recover attorney’s fees and costs in defending the usury action eventually found in their favor in Federal Court. 

The Nevada Supreme Court found that since the language of the guaranty provision for attorney’s fees and costs was limited to “enforcing the guaranty” or “collection or compromising the indebtedness”, that the defense of the usury action was not covered.  They found no affirmative action by the company to collect or compromise the loan.  Therefore, the guarantor was not liable for those fees and costs.

This decision is consistent with the current Supreme Court’s apparent policy mandate to bring Nevada law into line with the rest of the states in the Western United States, while discarding antiquated distinctions and regulations.

Steven R. Bartell

Share

Related posts

February 27, 2025

FinCEN Reporting Deadline Reinstated – March 21, 2025


Read more
Stacy Howlett
January 7, 2025

Howlett Joins Black & Wadhams in Las Vegas Office


Read more
December 30, 2024

BOI Reporting Deadline Paused


Read more
Black & Wadhams Logo

(702) 869-8801

Contact Us

  • Our Firm
  • Practice Areas
  • Our Team
  • General Counsel
  • Blog
  • Contact

Las Vegas

10777 West Twain Avenue Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89135

Carson City

300 S. Curry Street, #5 & 6 Carson City, NV 89703

Reno

50 West Liberty Street, Suite 1100, Reno, NV 89501

Monday - Friday, 8:00am to 5:00pm
(We are closed Saturday & Sunday.)

Copyright © 2022 Black & Wadhams, Attorneys at Law. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Payments | Site Design by Dual Digital.