Nevada Escrow Service, Inc. v. Crockett

• Decision Date: 28 March 1975
• Docket Number: No. 7641,7641
• Citation: 91 Nev. 201,533 P.2d 471
• Parties: NEVADA ESCROW SERVICE, INC., and Lawyers Title of Las Vegas, Inc., Appellants, v. George CROCKETT et al., Respondents.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Page 471

533 P.2d 471

91 Nev. 201

NEVADA ESCROW SERVICE, INC., and Lawyers Title of Las Vegas Inc., Appellants, v. George CROCKETT et al., Respondents.

No. 7641.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

March 28, 1975.

Brown & Deaner, Las Vegas, for appellants.

Cromer, Barker & Michaelson, Las Vegas, for respondents Crockett.

Goodman, Snyder & Gang, Las Vegas, for respondent Nevada Southern Title, Inc.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This appeal at this juncture concerns only the propriety of the refusal of the trial court issue a preliminary injunction restraining the foreclosure of two deeds of trust covering certain realty in Clark County.

John McNamee, a Las Vegas lawyer, was the buyer for undisclosed principals of property from Security Land & Investment Co., the seller. At the time of the escrow concerning the sale two notes secured by the two deeds of trust covered the property, the beneficiaries being George and Margaret Crockett. The debtor was Ray Petitfils. The notes were in the principal sum of $51,000.00 plus interest at 12%. The buyers were to pay off the existing indebtedness of the Crocketts.

The appellants, as escrow agents, wrote Acro Mortgage for the payoff on the Crockett loan. Acro had negotiated the loan from the Crocketts on behalf of Petitfils and appellant alleges was acting as collecting agent for the loan, no payment on which had been made. Upon receipt of information from Acro that $52,955.00 was the payoff figure, Nevada Escrow Service, Inc., issued its draft in that amount payable to Acro and transmitted it to Acro. Acro deposited the check into its own account. At the time of these events Acro was in bankruptcy.

The Crocketts not receiving payment as prescribed commenced foreclosure of the two deeds of trust. These appellants seek a preliminary injunction to halt those proceedings. The trial court denied the preliminary injunction on the ground that there existed an adequate remedy at law, to wit, money damages. Appellants appeal asserting trial court abuse of discretion for refusal to grant the injunction, and further, that the refusal will result in a multiplicity of lawsuits.

1. As to whether a preliminary injunction should be granted or refused is a question addressed to the discretion of the district court. Berryman v. Int'l Bhd. Elec. Workers, 82 Nev. 277, 280, 416 P.2d 387 (1966); see also Coronet Homes, Inc. v. Mylan, 84 Nev. 435, 442 P.2d 901 (1968). It is unusual when this court will overturn the determination of the trial...