Grupo Fasma v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. of the State of NV, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Apr. 21, 2016)

Merely because service of process complies with the Hague Convention does not necessarily mean that it complies with constitutional Due Process. Here, the district court failed to conduct adequate fact-finding necessary to determine whether service of process complied with constitutional Due Process. Accordingly, the Court issued a writ of prohibition instructing the district court to vacate its order denying Grupo’s motion to quash so that an evidentiary hearing may be held on the matter

Southern Highlands v. San Florentine, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Jan. 14, 2016)

Under the plain language of NRS 116.3116(4), “equal priority” is given to multiple HOA liens on the same property when those liens secure unpaid HOA charges and dues. When one lienholder of equal priority forecloses, all other liens are terminated. Nonetheless, all equal priority lienholders share in the foreclosure profit by either being paid in full when able to do so or, if sale profit is inadequate, through a pro-rata share of the proceeds. Thus, because the Foothills and Southern Highlands have equal priority liens, Foothills’ foreclosure terminated Southern Highlands lien, however Southern Highlands is entitled its allotment of the sale proceeds

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hansen, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 74 (Sept. 24, 2015)

Under Nevada law, an insurer is required to provide independent counsel of the insured choosing when a conflict of interest arises between the insured and the insurer. A reservation of rights fails to create a per se conflict of interest. Instead, the courts must analyze on a case-by-case basis whether an actual conflict exists. Only if an actual conflict exists, must an insurer be obligated to provide the insured with independent counsel