A-Mark Coin Co., Inc. v. Redfield's Estate
| Decision Date | 26 July 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 8769,A-MARK,8769 |
| Citation | 582 P.2d 359,94 Nev. 495 |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
| Parties | COIN COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. The ESTATE of LaVere REDFIELD, Deceased, Nell J. Redfield, Luana W. Miles and Candida Larena, Coexecutrices of the Estate of LaVere Redfield, Dorothy DesChamps, Rare Coin Galleries, a corporation and Bowers & Ruddy Galleries, a corporation, Respondents. |
Lionel, Sawyer & Collins, Las Vegas, and Hawkins, Rhodes, Sharp & Barbagelata, Reno, for appellant.
Gerald Smith, Clel Georgetta, Eli Grubic, Gordon Rice, Woodburn, Wedge, Blakey, Folsom & Hug, Vargas, Bartlett & Dixon, Reno, for respondents.
At issue is the power of the probate court to annul its order directing a private sale of the Redfield coin collection, and to direct instead, a public sale thereof.
The Estate of LaVere Redfield possessed 351,259 United States uncirculated silver dollars and 56,337 United States circulated silver dollars, a hoard having an appraised value of some $5,000,000. On November 4, 1975, the probate court authorized the Executrices of the estate to sell the coin collection to one or more buyers without the requirement of full disclosure, publication of notice and confirmation of sale. It was the court's belief, shared by those interested in the estate, that a private sale pursuant to NRS 148.170 would produce the best price, whereas a public sale would depress the coin market and significantly reduce the sale price of the collection. 1 The Executrices, pursuant to such authorization, made an agreement with A-Mark Coin Company, Inc., to sell the collection for $5,910,142. The sale was to occur January 19, 1976. That sale did not take place. Ten days before it was to happen, Rare Coin Galleries and Bowers & Ruddy Galleries, as coadventurers, submitted an unconditional offer in court to purchase the hoard for $6,501,156 and tendered a cashier's check in that amount.
This occurrence prompted the court to reconsider its November 4 order authorizing a private sale. The sale had not been consummated. It was evident that a better price could be obtained if public bidding was allowed. 2 Accordingly, the court, on January 14, 1976, found that: the order of November 4, 1975, was erroneously entered, and that a sale pursuant to NRS 148.170 was not appropriate and would not yield the best price; that the court was obliged to obtain the best price for the estate; that the collection should be sold pursuant to NRS 148.190. 3 Consequently, the court annulled the order of November 4, accepted the unconditional bid of Rare Coin Galleries and Bowers & Ruddy Galleries subject to further bidding at a public sale to be held January 27, 1976.
On January 27, 1976, public bidding occurred. A-Mark Coin Company, Inc., submitted the highest bid, $7,300,000. The court confirmed a sale of the coin collection to that company.
Notwithstanding its status as the successful bidder, A-Mark Coin Company, Inc., has appealed from two orders: the order directing a public sale, and the order confirming sale of the coin collection to it for $7,300,000. It claims an enforceable contract with the Executrices to purchase the coin collection for $5,910,142, and that the court lacked power to interfere with that contract at the insistence of Rare Coin Galleries and Bowers & Ruddy Galleries who allegedly were without standing to intrude. We turn to consider these contentions.
1. It is irrelevant whether Rare Coin Galleries and Bowers & Ruddy Galleries had standing to object to the private sale and themselves submit a bid. Their bid whether properly submitted or not, caused the probate court to realize that the best interests of the estate would be served by a public sale rather than a private sale. 4 Therefore, on its own initiative, the court annulled its order authorizing a private sale, and directed a public sale.
A probate court has jurisdiction to vacate a prior order upon learning that it was entered through mistake. Abel v. Lowry, 68 Nev. 284, 231 P.2d 191 (1951). Our remedial rule, NRCP 60(b), contemplates such action. 5 The court may initiate relief from such an order on its own motion. Martin v. Leonard Motor El-Paso, 75 N.M. 219, 402 P.2d 954 (1965); McDowell v. Celebrezze, 310 F.2d 43 (5th Cir. 1962). The court below was sensitive to its obligation. Its candor and wisdom in correcting an apparent mistake benefited the estate by $1,389,858. Its power to act as it did is established and, in our view, beyond question.
2. Since the probate court acted within its authority in nullifying prior authorization for a private sale and directing a public sale, we need not consider several other issues tendered by this appeal.
Affirmed.
I concur in the result for a reason different than that announced by the majority. I believe the order entered by the district court on November 4, 1975, was null and void Ab initio and that the order dated January 14, 1976, was the only valid order entered.
The only estate property which may be sold without notice with or without an order of the court is perishable property or other property which will depreciate in value if not disposed of promptly or which will incur loss or expenses by being kept. NRS 148.170. There is no evidence in this record to show that the silver dollars were incurring loss or expense in being kept, were depreciating in value or were perishable. The district court's finding and "belief" that a public sale would depress the coin market and significantly reduce the sale price of the collection were not valid reasons within the statutory scheme to support a private sale without notice. The order confirming the sale of the coin collection to appellant for $7,300,000 should be affirmed.
The majority concludes a probate court has absolute power to set aside any estate sale Sua sponte so long as the court's judgment is in the "best interests" of the estate. Such analysis fails to note a significant jurisdictional problem posed by our statutory scheme, and ignores established principles dealing with standing to interfere with estate actions.
In October, 1975, the executrices filed a "Petition for Instructions Regarding Sale of Personal Property," seeking to sell a unique collection of 407,596 silver dollars. They sought instructions because one of them, Nell J. Redfield, the decedent's widow and heir at law, as well as Dorothy DesChamps, sole beneficiary of decedent's one-half community property interest in the collection, both believed detailed disclosure and description of the coins to the public at large would seriously depress the numismatic value of the collection. Consequently, they sought permission to sell the collection pursuant to the private sale provisions of NRS 148.170, rather than under NRS 148.190, which required publication of notice of sale, and confirmation in open court. The two remaining co-executrices doubted the applicability of NRS 148.170, and believed disclosure would not adversely affect the market price. Consequently, they joined with Nell J. Redfield in the petition for instructions.
At a November 4, 1975, hearing on the petition, the district court declared it was "satisfied that there is a real danger if this matter is opened up to public disclosure, and that there will be a diminishing value to the coin collection that is involved here . . . ." The court then entered an "Order Authorizing Executrices to Sell Certain Personal Property Pursuant to N.R.S. Section 148.170." 1 Although notice of entry was given, no appeal was taken, the parties apparently accepting the court's determination.
Thereafter, the co-executrices and appellant A-Mark negotiated and executed a purchase agreement on December 17, 1975, selling the coin collection for $5,910,142. The purchase agreement was joined in, and agreed to, by Dorothy DesChamps, the sole beneficiary of the estate, and by Nell Redfield individually, the widow and heir at law of the decedent. The price exceeded by more than 10% The appraised value of the property as determined by the court-appointed appraiser.
On December 18, 1975, two other coin dealers who had not seen the collection, Rare Coin Galleries and Bowers and Ruddy Galleries, instituted proceedings to prevent sale under the contract. They filed both a "Petition for Order to Inspect Personal Property and for Leave Thereafter to Bid Thereon," and a "Petition for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and a Bid to Purchase Personal Property."
On December 29, 1975, the co-executrices, including the widow and heir at law, filed a motion to dismiss the petitions of the other coin dealers. The sole beneficiary later joined in the motion. At that time, all parties to the estate apparently were satisfied that the terms of the purchase agreement, including the sale price, were fair and equitable and in the best interests of the estate.
The district court subsequently held another hearing in January, and (1) vacated its prior order permitting sale pursuant to NRS 148.170, (2) canceled the existing contract with A-Mark, and (3) ordered a public sale. At the public sale, A-Mark was once again the successful bidder, but was not required to pay $7,300,000 for the collection. 1. The majority concludes: "Since the probate court acted Within its authority in nullifying prior authorization . . . we need not consider several other issues tendered by this appeal." (Emphasis added.) I cannot agree. In my view, the district court did not act "within its authority." The court lacked jurisdiction to Set aside the A-Mark contract once it was executed on December 17, 1975.
It is clear that once a sale takes place pursuant to NRS 148.170, no person may act to Prevent the sale. The statute merely permits an action for Damages if the sale by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mich. Geosearch, Inc. v. Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.
...to address the issue sua sponte. Sterling v. State, 108 Nev. 391, 394, 834 P.2d 400, 402 (1992); A-Mark Coin Co., Inc. v. Estate of Red field, 94 Nev. 495, 498, 582 P.2d 359, 361 (1978). In Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc., 529 U.S. 460 (2000), the United States Supreme Court held that where a jud......
-
A-Mark Coin Co. v. General Mills, Inc.
...1975 agreement was wholly void, and we find that that determination was supported by substantial evidence. In A-Mark Coin Co., Inc. v. Redfield's Estate, supra, 582 P.2d 359, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the probate court's power to annul its order directing a private sale of the Redfi......
-
Diotallevi v. Sierra Development Co.
...Church, 141 N.J.Eq. 92, 56 A.2d 120 (1947); In re Stone's Estate, 358 Pa. 335, 56 A.2d 664 (1948). Cf. A-Mark Coin Co. v. Estate of Redfield, 94 Nev. 495, 582 P.2d 359 (1978). We prefer the latter policy as more equitable, and for the reasons expressed below hold that it should govern in th......
-
McGuire v. Lear
...jurisdiction re the sale of the property. NRCP 60(b) has been held applicable in probate matters. A-Mark Coin Co., Inc. v. Redfield's Estate, 94 Nev. 495, 582 P.2d 359, 361 (1978). Rule 60(b) contemplates the setting aside of a final judgment or order obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.......