## Facts

- C. Nicholas Pereos, Ltd. was a law firm that maintained an operating account at Bank of America, N.A.
- Mary Williams, a long-time employee, was initially an authorized signatory on the account.
- In September 2006, the firm removed Williams as a signatory, leaving C. Nicholas Pereos as the sole authorized signatory.
- The account was not affirmatively closed; the firm intended the account to “run itself out” to cover outstanding checks.
- From 2006 to 2010, Williams allegedly deposited checks payable to the firm into the account and wrote checks for personal use using unauthorized signatures.
- On January 28, 2010, the firm notified the bank of the unauthorized activity and sued in February 2010 for losses from unauthorized signatures.
- During litigation, the firm alleged Williams enrolled the account in online banking and statements were not mailed, and further alleged the bank failed to “send or make available” statements as required by NRS 104.4406(1).

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was improper because genuine disputes of material fact existed concerning (a) how statements were delivered or made available, (b) what the statements showed, and (c) whether the bank exercised ordinary care in paying the items under NRS 104.4406(3)–(4).
2. Whether NRS 104.4406(6)’s one-year period of repose begins once upon the first forgery by a particular wrongdoer, or instead runs separately for each unauthorized item.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court’s summary judgment for Bank of America and remanded.
- The court held that material fact disputes existed regarding statement availability and content and the bank’s ordinary care, preventing summary judgment on statutory preclusion defenses.
- The court held that NRS 104.4406(6) does not impose a single one-year bar triggered by the first forgery by the same wrongdoer; the one-year period begins to run with each successive forgery, preserving claims for unauthorized items occurring within one year before the customer’s notice.

## Legal Principles

- Under NRS 104.4406, a customer generally must examine statements with reasonable promptness and provide notice of unauthorized signatures within the statutory period, or risk preclusion under NRS 104.4406(3)–(4).
- A bank invoking NRS 104.4406 preclusion defenses must show required statutory predicates, including that statements were “sent or made available” and, where applicable, that the bank exercised ordinary care in paying items.
- NRS 104.4406(6) is a one-year period of repose that applies on an item-by-item basis; the repose period runs separately for each unauthorized transaction reflected on statements, not as a single period tied to the first forgery by a recurring wrongdoer.
- When disputes exist about statement delivery/availability, statement content, or the bank’s ordinary care, those disputes can be material to whether NRS 104.4406 bars the customer’s claims and can preclude summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated the firm’s action because fact disputes prevented dispositive application of NRS 104.4406 at summary judgment and because the one-year repose provision runs separately for each unauthorized item, allowing claims for forgeries within one year before notice even if earlier forgeries by the same employee occurred outside that period.


C. Nicholas Pereos, Ltd. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 352 P.3d 1133 (Nev. 2015)