In JED Property, LLC v. Coastline RE Holdings NV Corp., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 11 (Mar. 5, 2015) the Nevada Supreme Court was presented with an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of Coastline. Coastline held a security interest in property owned by JED, which it had foreclosed. When Coastline later filed a civil action, JED asserted counterclaims for, among other things, wrongful foreclosure. JED argued that Coastline improperly foreclosed because it held a sale after orally postponing the sale three times and failing to re-notice the sale.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether NRS 107.082(2)’s notice requirement applied automatically after the third oral postponement or only applied if the sale’s time or place subsequently changed. NRS 107.082(2) states: “If [a trustee’s] sale has been postponed by oral proclamation three times, any new sale information must be provided by notice as provided in NRS 107.080.” The Court focused on the phrases “has been postponed” and “new sale information.” Based on that plain language, the Court determined that no additional notice is required by NRS 107.082(2) unless, after the third oral postponement, the day, time or place changes again from the information announced at the third oral postponement. Because no change in the sale information had occurred after the third oral postponement by Coastline, the Court determined that summary judgment was proper.

The Court’s ruling, though not earth-shattering in its determination that three means three, will save a lot of time and costs for parties conducting trustee’s sales under NRS 107.080.