Elements of Nevada's Theories of Liability

Quiet Title

Quiet Title

Elements

In Nevada, [a]n action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in real property, adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse claim.”
NRS § 40.010.

Such an action [of quiet title] requests a judicial determination of all adverse claims to disputed property. Clay v. Scheeline Banking & Trust Co., 40 Nev. 9, 159 P. 1081, 1082-83 (1916).
Del Webb Conservation Holding Corp. v. Tolman, 44 F.Supp.2d 1105, 1109-10 (D. Nev. 1999).

Example Cases

Proof

  • Plaintiff must first prove his claim of title

In a quiet title action, the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff to prove good title in himself. See, e.g., Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, 51 Cal.2d 702, 336 P.2d 525 (1959); Olsen v. Park Daughters Investment Company, 29 Utah 2d 421, 511 P.2d 145, 146 (1973). Moreover, there is a presumption in favor of the record titleholder. Cf. Biasi v. Leavitt, 101 Nev. 86, 89-90, 692 P.2d 1301, 1304 (1985) (adverse possession claimant has the burden of establishing claim “by clear and competent proof in order to overcome the presumption that possession of the land is under the regular title”).
Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 112 Nev. 663, 669, 918 P.2d 314, 318 (Nev. 1996).

Damages

Defenses

Misc

[A quiet title claim requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant is unlawfully asserting an adverse claim to title to real property.] Union Mill v. Mining Co. v. Warren, 82 F. 519, 520 (D.Nev.1897).

  • Various helpful guidelines

Quiet title action is the proper method by which to adjudicate disputed ownership of real property rights. SeeHowell v. Ricci, 197 P.3d 1044, 1046 n. 1 (Nev.2008). Though not properly a cause of action, an action to quiet title is an equitable proceeding in which a party seeks to settle a dispute over ownership of property or to remove a cloud upon his title to the property. MacDonald v. Krause, 77 Nev. 312, 317-18, 362 P.2d 724 (Nev.1961). While not addressed by the Nevada Supreme Court, a widely accepted rule in such actions is that the party must tender the undisputed amount due and owing to challenge the validity of a sale or title to the property. See,e.g., Abdallah v. United Savings Bank, 43 Cal.App. 4th 1101, 1109 (1996). In essence, under the Tender Rule, he who seeks equity must do equity. SeeMcQuiddy v. Ware, 87 U.S. 14, 19 (1873). This was clearly a factor to the Nevada Supreme Court when it ruled in a favor of a party challenging a sale on their property due to past due taxes. Provenzano v. Clark County, 73 Nev. 348, 353 (1957) (“Plaintiff’s action was to quiet title to the property involved, accompanied by a tender to pay all taxes.”).
Joyner v. Bank of America Home Loans, Case No. 2:09-CV-2406-RCJ-RJJ 2010 WL 2953969 (D. Nev. 2010).

A quiet title claim requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant is unlawfully asserting an adverse claim to title to real property. Union Mill v. Mining Co. v. Warren, 82 F. 519, 520 (D.Nev.1897); Clay v. Cheeline Banking & Trust Co., 40 Nev. 9, 159, 159 P. 1081 (1916). Kemberling v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 2:09-CV-00567-RCJ-LRL, 2009 WL 5039495 (D. Nev. 2009).