- Quickdraw McLaw
- 17 Comments
- 949 Views
With only 40 days until Christmas and the official news yesterday that Judge Earl will retire after next year, its time to start talking about your judicial wish list. With a January 17, 2014, deadline for judicial candidate registration, now is the time to be convincing your peers to step up to the plate to sit on the bench. We all know how difficult it is to get our best and brightest to run, but maybe a little anonymous peer pressure on the Internet will get them to at least consider the possibility.
Who do you think should be running for district court judge or the Nevada Supreme Court next year?
NOT Stefany Miley
Frank Kocka and Sam Bateman would both make good criminal case judges and are both smart enough to keep civil practitioners happy. I don't currently have time to type out a list of all those currently on the bench who should not be, but I'll add Jessie Walsh to 8:28's mention.
Although still fairly young, Matthew Christian from Kolesar Leatham would make a great judge. Even demeanor, fair, and very sharp. Assets the Eighth Judicial could use.
Gene Backus. Jeff Garofalo. Eileen Marks.
I'd second Eileen for several reasons, including 1. She's not a perennial candidate, 2. She doesn't want it, and 3. She's remarkably intelligent and even-tempered.
Well it seems like Eileen is a popular person today because I'd recommend her for judge as well. Super smart, incredibly hard worker and knows the law as well as anybody. She'd have my vote. Unfortunately, I don't think she'll be interested.
Well, that settles it. Time to set up the Committee to Draft Eileen Marks.
Brian Whitaker.
Jim Crocket
Richard Scotti
Definitely agree with 8:28 and 8:54. No way people like Walsh and Miley should be on the bench.
How about that Sandpointe decision? Didn't seem to resolve a lot of the AB 273 issues out there.
2 1/2 years for that? Agreed.
My reading of the Sandpointe decision is that regardless of when the note & mortgage was acquired by a successor, if the foreclosure sale occurs after July 1, 2011, then the deficiency is limited to the the difference between the consideration paid for the note minus either the FMV of the property or the auction sales price (whichever is greater). The important part to me (in a few of my cases) is that 'regardless of when the note & mortgage was acquired by a successor.'
Is that how you read it as well?
Does this kind of reasoning apply to student loans too? When the collectors come calling, I can say "Fuck you and the whole balance too. The Supremies said I only have to pay you what you bought it for, which is pennies on the dollar."
Incidentally, this is why Nevadans can't have nice things.
That is a plausible interpretation of what is written in that abortion of an opinion. In addition to contradicting their own retroactivity analysis they contradict the actual language of the statute – stating that a successor's judgment is not only limited to the consideration paid, but excludes fees, cost, interest, etc. when NRS 40.459(1)(c) expressly allows for the same (post-foreclosure). The major problem with the opinion is that they acknowledge the Contract Clause and other preemption issues, but pass the buck. I can't wait for another 2 1/2 years down the road when these cases can get another sentence of guidance.
@ 7:29 a.m. – Almost, but you have the date wrong. The limiting amendments to NRS 40.459 (AB 273) applies where the foreclosure sale occurs after the effective date of that law – June 10, 2011.
Ditto on Mathew Christian. Would make a good judge.
Cherry's dissent illuminates the goal oriented nature and overt stupidity of the court's decision.