Nevada § 104.9626 - Action in which deficiency or surplus is in issue

§ 104.9626. Action in which deficiency or surplus is in issue

1. In an action arising from a transaction, other than a consumer transaction, in

which the amount of a deficiency or surplus is in issue, the following rules apply: (a) A secured party need not prove compliance with the provisions of this part relating

to collection, enforcement, disposition or acceptance unless the debtor or a secondary

obligor places the secured party's compliance in issue. (b) If the secured party's compliance is placed in issue, the secured party has the

burden of establishing that the collection, enforcement, disposition or acceptance

was conducted in accordance with this part. (c) Except as otherwise provided in NRS 104.9628 , if a secured party fails to prove that the collection, enforcement, disposition

or acceptance was conducted in accordance with the provisions of this part relating

to collection, enforcement, disposition or acceptance, the liability of a debtor or

a secondary obligor for a deficiency is limited to an amount by which the sum of the

secured obligation, expenses and attorney's fees exceeds the greater of: (1) The proceeds of the collection, enforcement, disposition or acceptance; or (2) The amount of proceeds that would have been realized had the noncomplying secured

party proceeded in accordance with the provisions of this part relating to collection,

enforcement, disposition or acceptance. (d) For purposes of subparagraph (2) of paragraph (c), the amount of proceeds that

would have been realized is equal to the sum of the secured obligation, expenses and

attorney's fees unless the secured party proves that the amount is less than that

sum. (e) If a deficiency or surplus is calculated under subsection 6 of NRS 104.9615 , the debtor or obligor has the burden of establishing that the amount of proceeds

of the disposition is significantly below the range of prices that a complying disposition

to a person other than the secured party, a person related to the secured party or

a secondary obligor would have brought. 2. The limitation of the rules in subsection 1 to transactions other than consumer

transactions leaves to the court the determination of the proper rules in consumer

transactions. The court may not infer from that limitation the nature of the proper rule in consumer

transactions and may continue to apply established approaches.