Grouse Creek Ranches v. Budget Financial Corp.
| Decision Date | 13 September 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 6225,6225 |
| Citation | 87 Nev. 419,488 P.2d 917 |
| Parties | GROUSE CREEK RANCHES, Appellant and Cross-Respondent, v. BUDGET FINANCIAL CORPORATION and Nevada Title Guaranty Company, Respondents and Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Wilson and Wilson, Elko, and Keith Williams, Santa Ana, Cal., for appellant and cross-respondent.
McCune & Williams and Virgil D. Dutt, Reno, for respondent and cross-appellant Budget Financial Corp.
Emerson Wilson, Reno, for respondent and cross-appellant Nevada Title Guaranty Co.
Condensed to its simplest form the theme of this litigation finds Budget Financial Corporation (hereinafter 'Budget') as a pledgee, the holder of instruments as security for monies loaned by it to Pacific Westates Land Development Corporation (hereinafter 'Westates'). Grouse Creek Ranches (hereinafter 'Grouse Creek'), also a creditor of Westates, seeks collection of its claim against Westate by garnishment of Nevada Title Guaranty Company (hereinafter 'Nevada Title') who held the security owned by Budget. Budget foreclosed and retained all of the value represented by its security but Grouse Creek claims at least the excess of that security over and above Budget's total claim, unless, however, we hold as a prior result that Budget may not claim any of it because of certain procedural deficiencies. Budget and Grouse Creek, as creditors of Westates, want to satisfy their judgments obtained against Westates, but Budget claims all of the security, refuses to disclose the amount realized from the security, and asserts in any event at least a prior lien claim to the security as against anyone else.
Therefore, the lawsuit, which had its inception in 1963, is a dispute between creditors. The debtor, Westates, was a real estate development enterprise which bought large parcels of land from Grouse Creek in 1959. Originally, the time-payment sale agreement was secured by a second deed of trust but between 1959 and 1963 several parcels were released from this deed of trust and in place of this security Grouse Creek was assigned certain land sales contracts under which Westates was seller and third persons were buyers. By and after 1963, however, numerous buyers defaulted on these contracts, so Grouse Creek was left with contracts of little value, and therefore, insufficient security for the amount owed. Thus, in 1963, Grouse Creek sued Westates, inter alia, to recover title to other lands which had been released from the deed of trust but which were not the subject of land sales contracts assigned to it and for a money judgment.
Budget entered the picture in 1961 when it began making a series of loans to Westates. These loans were secured by pledges of groups of land sales contracts other than those described above. As the financial condition of Westates further deteriorated in 1962, Budget, Westates and Nevada Title entered into an agreement Approximately six months after this December 1962 transfer of the remaining land sales contracts, Grouse Creek garnished Westates' property in the hands of Nevada Title, the garnishee. In answering the interrogatories annexed to the writ of garnishment, Nevada Title denied being indebted to Westates, but admitted it held $9,537.54 which it had received as payments on the land sales contracts pursuant to the above-described December 1962 agreement. It also stated it did not know the extent of the interest of Westates in the contracts. The $9,537.54 held by Nevada Title was levied upon by the sheriff but apparently nothing further was done relative to subsequent payments received by Nevada Title.
whereunder all land sales contracts and trust deeds still held by Westates, whether previously pledged or not, were deposited with Nevada Title and trust deeds to the realty were conveyed to them and recorded.
In October 1963 Budget served Nevada Title with notice of default and election to sell the property represented by the December 1962 trust deed. The December 1962 agreement empowered Budget and Nevada Title to conduct a nonjudicial public sale in the event of certain defaults by Westates. Shortly after it served this notice Budget entered into an indemnity agreement with Nevada Title whereunder Budget would hold Nevada Title harmless from the effect of the writ of garnishment. Thereafter, Nevada Title released to Budget a total of about $529,000 it collected on the land sales contracts.
Grouse Creek moved to interplead Budget in November 1963 as granishee defendant and the motion was granted a month later. Subsequently, in February 1964, the default sale was held. Budget was the purchaser of the deeds. In early June of that year it conveyed this property to a third party. Shortly thereafter Nevada Title, as trustee, also sold all land sales contracts and trust deeds in its possession to Budget. Subsequently, later in June, Budget answered the motion to interplead it as garnishee defendant by denying it held any property belonging to Westates or that Grouse Creek had any claim to property in its hands. It asserted absolute title to all property held. Grouse Creek responded to this answer by asserting, inter alia, that Budget had no special right to the contested property by virtue of either law or the contracts with Westates.
In March 1966 Grouse Creek obtained a default judgment against Westates on the principal action in the approximate amount of $283,000. Similarly, in December 1966 Budget obtained a substantial default judgment against Westates.
The garnishment action was subsequently tried and a decision filed in November 1968. Judgment was entered January 21, 1969. The court denied Budget's assertion of third-party rights in the property and ordered that Grouse Creek have a joint and several judgment of $338,610.05 against Nevada Title and any garnished property, payments thereon or proceeds thereof remaining in Nevada Title's possession.
On February 3, 1969 Budget moved, inter alia, to alter, amend and modify the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment. A hearing was held in May 1969 and Budget moved to amend its pleadings to conform to the evidence--i. e., that under the facts shown it was entitled to a lien against the collateral in the form of the land sales contracts. The various motions were taken under advisement and in December 1969 the court held a second hearing on the merits. In February 1970 the court ruled, granting Budget's motion to amend the pleadings. Though it reaffirmed its denial of Budget's claim to absolute title, the court held that Budget was entitled to a lien upon the property because of its pledge status. The findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment were ordered amended accordingly.
From this order Grouse Creek appeals and Budget and Nevada Title cross-appeal. Further facts will be elicited as pertinent to discussion of the issue addressed.
Basically, what Grouse Creek seeks in the principal appeal is reinstatement of the original judgment ordered in the lower The issues presented in the principal appeal are as follows:
court which entitled it to recovery of $283,716.69 (the amount of its judgment against Westates) plus interest from Nevada Title. The basis of this judgment was the court's holding that Budget was not entitled to receive absolute title to the property held by Nevada Title. What Budget seeks in its cross-appeal is the relief given in neither the original nor amended judgment, namely, absolute title to the property held by Nevada Title after 1963 and sold in 1964 pursuant to the December 1962 agreement.
I. Whether the lower court erred in granting Budget's motion to alter, amend and modify the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment because:
A. The motion failed to state with sufficient particularity the grounds upon which it was based;
B. The motion was merely a generalized attack on the findings and failed to specify the relief or order sought;
C. The notice of hearing of the motion was not served within ten days after service of notice of entry of judgment;
D. The issue of Budget's lien was not tried and the motion to amend the pleadings was untimely; and
E. Budget had elected by its pleadings to assert only absolute title and it was estopped from later asserting a lesser interest.
II. Whether the judgment of January 21, 1969 against Nevada Title must be sustained unless Nevada Title prevails on issue III in the cross-appeal, irrespective of the outcome of the rest of the cross-appeal and appeal.
The issues presented in the cross-appeal are as follows:
I. Whether the cross-appeal of budget and Nevada Title should be dismissed because the notice of appeal does not refer to an appealable final judgment or order.
II. Whether Nevada Title, at the time of garnishment, held any property of Westates in which there was a garnishable interest.
III. Whether Grouse Creek's failure to traverse Nevada Title's answers to the garnishment requires that it be deemed to admit the answer as true, and therefore Grouse Creek admitted Nevada Title had no property belong to Westates.
A. The motion failed to state with sufficient particularity the grounds upon which it was based;
B. The motion was merely a generalized attack on the findings and failed to specify the relief or order sought;
C. The notice of hearing of the motion was not served within ten days after service of notice of entry of judgment;
D. The issue of Budget's lien was not tried and the motion to amend the pleadings and untimely; and
E. Budget had elected by its pleadings to assert only absolute title and it was estopped from later asserting a lesser interest.
I. A. Grouse Creek argues that the February 3, 1969 motion to alter, amend and modify the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
University of Nevada v. Tarkanian
...parties' rights, an appellate court can reverse the entire judgment if justice so requires. See Grouse Creek Ranches v. Budget Financial Corp., 87 Nev. 419, 488 P.2d 917 (1971); Blache v. Blache, 37 Cal.2d 531, 233 P.2d 547 (1951); Kvenild v. Taylor, 594 P.2d 972 (Wyo.1979). The rule under ......
-
Summa Corp. v. Greenspun
...whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings." Grouse Cr. Ranches v. Budget Financial Corp., 87 Nev. 419, 488 P.2d 917 (1971); Checker, Inc. v. Zeman, 86 Nev. 216, 467 P.2d 100 Proof of the fees incurred was through the use of a sum......
-
S. Nev. Adult Mental Health Servs. v. Brown
...SNAMHS despite SNAMHS's repeated objections throughout the proceedings and even after trial. Cf. Grouse Creek Ranches v. Budget Fin. Corp., 87 Nev. 419, 426-27, 488 P.2d 917, 922-23 (1971) (rejecting the argument that the district court erred because it granted judgment in favor of a party ......
-
Ross v. Giacomo
...draftsman." Forman v. Eagle Thrifty Drugs & Markets, 89 Nev. 533, 536, 516 P.2d 1234, 1236 (1973); see Grouse Cr. Ranches v. Budget Financial Corp., 87 Nev. 419, 488 P.2d 917 (1971). In Casino Operations, Inc. v. Graham, 86 Nev. 764, 476 P.2d 953 (1970), this court, relying on federal pract......