The Start of The Legislative Session In Nevada

Rocky Finseth

By Rocky Finseth, Carrara Nevada

The Nevada Legislature began on February 7th and has been moving at a quick pace ever since the opening gavel.  With one of the largest structural budget deficits in the nation, legislators face the daunting task of trying to close a large budget hole, with few alternatives for funding or cuts to Governor Sandoval’s budget.  Add to the mix the task of redrawing political boundaries, and you can see why legislators are moving quickly to get major policy issues off the table in order to allow more time to focus on the larger task at hand.

For UTA members, the 400 or so bills which have been introduced to date have little impact on trustee sales in Nevada.  Yet, buried within the 1200 bill draft requests (BDR) are ideas and concepts which will impact the members.  These bill requests have yet to formally surface, but legislative deadlines will force many of these measures to be discussed in the next few weeks.

Several bills that have been introduced may be of interest to members of the UTA. 

SB 139 deals with the assignment of certain interests and would require that such assignments to be recorded within 30 days after the assignment under the penalty of treble damages.  This measure has caused great concern to a number of interests including the UTA, title companies, and the banking industry.  I am happy to report that while the bill was initially scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, after expressing the concerns of the UTA, the bill sponsor had the bill pulled off the agenda and I do not expect the bill to resurface.

SB 77 is a bill dealing with notaries, and it places certain penalties on employers who do not carry proper oversight over notary employees who do not adequately secure their notary books and stamps.

AB 77 is a comprehensive bill addressing mortgage lending, and makes numerous changes to the Nevada statutes dealing with independent escrow agencies and escrow agents; mortgage brokers and mortgage agents and other matters pertaining to mortgage lending.  In a hearing before the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee earlier this week, much of the provisions of the measure were stripped by the Division due to opposition and concerns from certain interest groups, and key members of the Assembly.

For those UTA members who participated in the pre-session meetings in Las Vegas with former Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley and newly elected Assemblyman Jason Frierson, you can expect to see some of UTA’s ideas and suggestions incorporated into BDR 668, which would make changes to the Foreclosure Mediation Program.  Frierson acknowledged the testimony of UTA member Michael Brooks, and indicated to me that all of the ideas and suggestions -- no matter how good or how bad -- are under consideration, and that the legislation would be forthcoming in the weeks ahead. Frierson does not expect a follow-up meeting prior to the introduction of the measure.  

Speaking of the Nevada Mediation program, the Supreme Court recently revised its rules pertaining to the program.  The new rules address the following: a) expand the time to file a petition for judicial review from 15 to 30 days after a party receives a mediator’s statement following mediation; b) simplify the process to suspend or terminate a mediator; c) tighten the process to protect homeowners when multiple notices of default are filed; d) permit homeowners to give power of attorney to someone to represent them providing the representative is a Nevada attorney or qualified under NRS 645F.310, or there is no compensation provided; e) clarify the forms that must be provided by parties in mediations; f) address temporary modifications and require that agreements to relinquish a home must include a date when the owner occupant will vacate the premises.