Nevada Judiciary

January 12, 2012, Oral Arguments

Building Energetix Corp. vs. EHE, LP

Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty

State vs. Beckman (Kent)

Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty

 Newman (Shawn) vs. State

Carson City – 11:30 a.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty

Building Energetix Corp. vs. EHE, LP,

Docket No. 57203

Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty

This case involves a foreclosure conflict that occurred because the lender foreclosed for non-payment of the loan, and Lyon County foreclosed for non-payment of taxes. In the underlying case, appellant Building Energetix Corporation executed a promissory note and a deed of trust to respondent EHE, Inc., in exchange for a loan.  Building Energetix subsequently failed to pay property taxes and failed to make loan payments.  The Lyon County treasurer issued a tax certificate and a tax lien against the property.  Thereafter, EHE foreclosed on its deed of trust and purchased the property at the foreclosure sale.  Before EHE recorded the deed, it also “redeemed” the property from the county by paying past-due taxes.  EHE filed a complaint for a deficiency judgment against Building Energetix.  Building Energetix argued that EHE could not collect a deficiency because the foreclosure sale was invalid; it asserted that the foreclosure sale could not have been completed because the county held the property in trust pursuant to the tax certificate.  The district court granted a deficiency of $140,403.99 to EHE.  Building Energetix appeals.  ISSUES: (1) Can a non-judicial foreclosure sale occur after a tax certificate for delinquency in payment of taxes is issued but prior to issuance of a treasurer's deed?  (2) Is EHE entitled to a deficiency judgment following a valid foreclosure sale or is it prevented from obtaining a deficiency judgment because the sale was invalid and ownership of the property was gained through redemption following the issuance of the treasurer’s deed? (3) At what point is a foreclosure sale completed for purposes of determining whether the sale occurred before the issuance of the treasurer's deed – is it completed once the sale occurs or only after the deed is recorded following the sale?  (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.  To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do)

State vs. Beckman (Kent),

Docket No. 57928

Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty

In this case, the State is appealing a district court decision to exclude drug evidence found in a car by a drug dog following a traffic stop in Elko County. Kent Beckman was stopped for speeding and the officer who stopped him requested a drug dog to come to the scene. The drug dog alerted to the presence of drugs in the car and Beckman was arrested. The district court granted Beckman’s motion to suppress the evidence and the State is now appealing.  ISSUE: Did a warrantless search of respondent’s vehicle after he was stopped for speeding and a drug dog alerted to the car violate Beckman’s Fourth Amendment rights, thereby justifying exclusion of the evidence that police officers obtained?  (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.  To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do)

Newman (Shawn) vs. State,

Docket No. 56151

Carson City – 11:30 a.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty

Shawn Timothy Newman is appealing a judgment of conviction for battery by strangulation and willfully endangering a child as a result of child abuse.  During trial, the district court admitted evidence that Newman previously had beaten his children and became involved in an altercation with hospital staff while his son was recovering from surgery.  After the defense rested, another witness contacted the prosecution about an encounter with Newman.  The district court allowed the witness to testify that she observed Newman hitting and berating his son outside of a Wal-Mart and that Newman entered the Wal-Mart to confront her after she notified security.  ISSUES:  (1) Did the district court err in admitting evidence of Newman’s prior bad acts? (2) Did the last-minute admission of evidence after the defense rested violate Newman’s right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment?  (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.  To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do)s