Return Receipt Requested on Foreclosure Docs

First of all I would like to introduce my new law clerk, Mr. John Ellis. John brings more than 30 years of legal research and writing experience to the Goodman Law Center. I asked John to contribute to our blog. His contribution is on a common issue in Nevada foreclosure law that we are seeing in the office:

As a practical matter, the federal court–the United States District Court for the District of Nevada–rather than the state court–the Washoe County District Court–ends up deciding most of the foreclosure cases in northern Nevada. Although filed initially in the state court, these foreclosure cases usually are removed, as of right, to the federal court, based upon complete diversity of citizenship. This situation is problematic, because Nevada foreclosure law is not well-settled on many issues. As a result, the federal court necessarily is required to predict what the Nevada Supreme Court might do, if squarely presented with these issues. For example, in a recent case, Leggett v. Fannie Mae, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108867, at 8-10 (D. Nev. Aug. 3, 2012), United States District Judge Robert Clive Jones Court recently ruled that mailing a notice of default and election to sell by “certified mail” substantially complied with the requirement of NRS 107.080(3) that notice of default and election to sell must be mailed by “certified mail, return receipt requested.” Of course, the Nevada Supreme Court, if squarely presented with this issue, might well decide that sending a notice of default and election to sell by “certified mail” does not substantially comply with the requirement of NRS 107.080(3) that notice of default and election to sell must be mailed by “certified mail, return receipt requested.” Only time will tell.

Posted in

Mark