Appellants Arthur R. Waddell and his wife, Roswitha M. Waddell (the Waddells), entered into a contract to purchase a 1996 Coachmen Santara motor home (the RV) from crossappellant L.V.R.V. Inc., D/B/A Wheeler's Las Vegas RV (Wheeler's). In 1996 the Waddells agreed to purchase the RV and an extended warranty from Wheeler's, and requested that various repairs be performed on the vehicle's engine cooling system, that new batteries be installed, and that the door frames be aligned, prior to delivery. The Waddells took delivery of the RV on September 1, 1997. The Waddells noticed problems with the RV on their first out-of-state trip, during which the entry door popped open and the engine overheated. Other defects included faulty air-conditioning and heating. The RV was returned to Wheeler's for repairs, where it remained for a total of seven months during different periods of time between September 1997 and March 1999 while the service department attempted to remedy recurring problems. The Waddells grew tired of having to continually return the RV for more repairs, and, on June 9, 2000, filed a complaint in district court seeking to revoke their acceptance of the RV or, in the alternative, monetary damages. Wheeler’s answered the complaint and filed a third-party complaint against Coachmen Recreational Vehicle Company, Inc. (Coachmen) seeking equitable indemnification and contribution. Following a bench trial, the district court concluded that the RV's nonconformities substantially impaired its value to the Waddells. The district court permitted the Waddells to revoke their acceptance of the RV, ordered Wheeler's to return all of the Waddell's out-of-pocket expenses, and held that Wheeler's was not entitled to indemnification from Coachmen. Following the judgment, the court awarded the Waddells $15,000 in attorney fees, entered supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, issued an amended judgment, entered a separate order denying post-judgment interest on the attorney fee award, and denied the Waddells' motion to recalculate their costs to include computerized research fees. Both parties appealed. Wheeler's had argued, inter alia,2 that (1) the Waddells should not be permitted to revoke their acceptance of the RV because they failed to prove that the RV's nonconformities substantially impaired its value, and (2) the Waddells' revocation of the contract was not made within a reasonable period of time following acceptance. The Waddells argued, inter alia,3 that they were entitled to post-judgment interest on attorney fees awarded by the district court. The Nevada Supreme Court was thus presented with three issues of first impression. First, the court adopted the two-part test of the Supreme Court of Oregon to determine whether the nonconformities of the RV substantially impaired its value to the Waddells, and held they did, since the nonconformities thwarted the Waddells' intended use of the vehicle, and the 1 By Waddells had presented sufficient evidence of this at trial. Second, the court adopted the reasoning of the Indiana and Arizona Courts of Appeals, that the reasonableness of the time in which a contract may be revoked is an issue of fact for the trial court, and depends upon the nature, purpose, and circumstances of the transaction, and held that the Waddells had revoked the contract within a reasonable period of time. Third, the court adopted the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Ohio, that awarding post-judgment interest on attorney fees properly recognizes the time value of money and makes the prevailing party truly whole, and held that the Waddells were entitled to post-judgment interest on their attorney fees.
Hale, Christian, "Summary of Waddell v. L.V.R.V. Inc., 122 Nev. ___" (2006). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 565.