Opinion ID: 1366677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Improperly Identified Equipment

Text: The lease specifically identifies two pieces of equipment; in contrast, the notice of sale identifies only one. It is impossible to determine from the record if the two documents refer to the exact same equipment. The notice of sale differs from the lease, in part, with respect to the equipment name and serial numbers, and is completely different with respect to the model numbers. Moreover, neither the financing statement filed by Allen nor the Deficiency Balance statement produced by Allen contain exact references to the equipment identified in the original lease. In sum, there is no telling what equipment was sold by Allen at the public sale, and based upon our holding in Clauson v. Lloyd, 103 Nev. 432, 743 P.2d 631 (1987), we refuse to accept the Allen employee affidavits as being dispositive of the issue. In Clauson, a medical doctor was sued for malpractice. The doctor was granted summary judgment on the basis of his own self-serving affidavit that he had performed according to the standard of practice, learning, and skill ordinarily practiced by medical practitioners in the community. Id. at 433, 743 P.2d at 632. We reversed the summary judgment because the affidavit was too general to show there were no genuine issues of material fact. More importantly, we refused to rely upon the affidavit without an accompanying means of validation: Were we to hold that the affidavit in this case is strong enough to support a summary judgment motion, the effect would be chilling: any defendant physician could come into court, file a motion for summary judgment alleging solely that he conformed to the applicable standard of care without any valid supporting documentation and if the plaintiff did not procure an expert to refute the charge, his case would be thrown out. Id. at 435, 743 P.2d at 633. Although Clauson deals with medical malpractice, the chilling effect mentioned therein is equally applicable to this case. Allen failed to show why the equipment listed on the face of Mr. Dennison's lease is the same equipment which was repossessed and sold at public auction in California, and we refuse to affirm a summary judgment that is premised upon a bare record and unsupported affidavits.