## Facts

- Arthur and Roswitha Waddell agreed to buy a 1996 Coachmen Santara motor home from L.V.R.V. Inc., doing business as Wheeler’s Las Vegas RV, and also purchased an extended warranty.
- Before delivery, the Waddells requested service on the engine cooling system, new batteries, and aligned door frames; they took delivery on September 1, 1997.
- On the first out-of-state trip, the entry door popped open and the engine overheated; other recurring problems included faulty air-conditioning and heating.
- The Waddells repeatedly returned the motor home for repairs; during the 18 months after purchase, it spent 213 days in the dealer’s service department.
- The Waddells sued seeking revocation of acceptance or damages; Wheeler’s filed a third-party claim against the manufacturer, Coachmen Recreational Vehicle Company, Inc., for equitable indemnification and contribution.
- After a bench trial, the district court found the nonconformities substantially impaired the RV’s value to the Waddells, allowed revocation, ordered Wheeler’s to return the Waddells’ out-of-pocket expenses, and denied Wheeler’s indemnification claim against Coachmen.
- The district court awarded the Waddells $15,000 in attorney’s fees, denied their request to tax computerized legal-research charges as costs, and denied post-judgment interest on the attorney-fee award.
- Wheeler’s appealed the revocation ruling, evidentiary rulings, denial of its requested attorney’s fees, and denial of indemnification; the Waddells cross-appealed the denial of research costs and fee-award interest.

## Issues

1. Whether the buyers proved that the motor home’s nonconformities substantially impaired its value to them, permitting revocation of acceptance under Nevada’s UCC.
2. Whether the buyers revoked acceptance within a reasonable time after acceptance, given extended repair efforts and continued use.
3. Whether the dealer was entitled to equitable indemnification or contribution from the manufacturer for the dealer’s liability to the buyers.
4. Whether computerized legal-research charges are recoverable as taxable costs.
5. Whether post-judgment interest accrues on an attorney-fee award.

## Decision

- Affirmed the judgment permitting the Waddells to revoke acceptance because the nonconformities substantially impaired the RV’s value to them.
- Affirmed that the revocation was timely; the period for revocation was reasonably affected by ongoing repair efforts.
- Affirmed denial of Wheeler’s indemnification or contribution claim against Coachmen.
- Affirmed denial of computerized legal-research charges as taxable costs (including for inadequate itemization).
- Reversed the denial of post-judgment interest on the attorney-fee award and remanded for proceedings consistent with that ruling.
- Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Revocation of acceptance under Nevada’s UCC requires proof that nonconformities substantially impair the goods’ value to the buyer; the inquiry considers the buyer’s circumstances and objective evidence of the defects’ extent and persistence.
- A buyer’s revocation must occur within a reasonable time after discovery of the grounds for revocation; ongoing repair attempts and time in the seller’s possession for repairs may support finding the revocation timely.
- Good-faith repair attempts by the seller do not bar revocation when serious defects persist and the goods remain unfit for the buyer’s intended use.
- A seller seeking equitable indemnification or contribution from a manufacturer must establish a basis for shifting the loss; absent proof tying the seller’s liability to a cognizable indemnity obligation or manufacturer responsibility on the record, indemnification may be denied.
- Computerized legal-research charges are not taxable costs absent sufficient itemization and a recognized basis for treating them as recoverable costs.
- Post-judgment interest applies to an attorney-fee award as part of the money judgment once the award is entered.

## Conclusion

The court sustained UCC revocation for a defect-ridden motor home after prolonged unsuccessful repairs, refused to shift the dealer’s liability to the manufacturer, disallowed poorly supported research-cost claims, and required post-judgment interest on the attorney-fee award, remanding only for implementation of the interest ruling.


Waddell v. L.V.R.V. Inc., 122 Nev. 15, 125 P.3d 1160 (Nev. 2006)