After the Nevada Supreme Court issued a 5-2 decision in Sandpointe Apartments v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., which found that 2011 amendments modifying Nevada’s anti-deficiency protections created limitations on the amount a note-purchaser could recover as part of a deficiency judgment, several constitutional issues remained undetermined regarding loans acquired from the FDIC-as-receiver for failed banks.

The authors of this article discuss the issues caused by the phrase “consideration paid” and how the Nevada Supreme Court has clarified it.

Continue Reading.