Before the Court En Banc. Opinion by Chief Justice Pickering.
In this matter, in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions to the Nevada Supreme Court, the Court considered whether the following actions are properly characterized as proceedings in personam (in which a judgment acts only upon the parties to the suit), in rem (a proceeding taken directly against property, in which a judgment applies against the entire world), or quasi in rem (a proceeding to determine rights in certain property; i.e., “a halfway house between in rem and in personam proceedings): 1) a quiet title action under NRS 40.010, which is premised on an allegedly invalid trustee’s sale under NRS 107.080(5)(a); and 2) an unlawful detainer action under NRS 40.255(1)(c). The Court concluded that a quiet title action is “predominately in rem or quasi in rem,” because its primary purpose was to establish title to real property. In so holding, the Court rejected Deutsche Bank’s argument that a quiet title action in which the plaintiff also seeks monetary damages changes the nature of the proceeding to an in personam proceeding. The Court also concluded that although an unlawful detainer action “does not adjudicate title or an absolute right to possession of property,” an unlawful detainer action is nevertheless a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem because its purpose is to determine rights to possession – a lesser property interest than title, but a property interest nonetheless – as between a plaintiff and a defendant. Having so concluded, the Court answered the certified questions in the affirmative. (Patrick J. Murch, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson.)
