Opinion ID: 2599126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Plain meaning interpretation

Text: The State argues that the definition of securities expressly includes notes and, therefore, this court should give the statute its plain meaning so as to include the notes issued by Friend in exchange for an investment in his business. [4] In response, Friend argues that there is ambiguity in the meaning of the word note under the Act. This court has stated that when the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, they will be given their plain, ordinary meaning. [5] There is no need to look beyond the language of the statute. [6] However, if a statute is susceptible to more than one natural or honest interpretation, it is ambiguous. [7] When the meaning of a statute is ambiguous, legislative intent controls its interpretation. [8] This court will interpret the statute in accord with reason and public policy to avoid an absurd result. [9] NRS 90.295 defines a security to mean, among other things, simply a note. The word note is generally defined as [a] written promise by one party ... to pay money to another party ... or to bearer. [10] We conclude that a literal, plain meaning interpretation of the word note as a security would lead to the absurd result of applying to nearly all notes issued in Nevada, including promissory notes issued in connection with such things as car loans or student loans. This court has stated that the unreasonableness of the result produced by one among alternative possible interpretations of a statute is reason for rejecting that interpretation. [11] Therefore, we must look elsewhere for meaning.