Nevada's Homeowner's Bill of Rights, SB 321 – A Lesson in Civics

Cheryl Blomstrom

Nevada has introduced its own Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, SB 321 and it’s very similar to California’s Homeowner’s Bill of Rights passed last year.  While some version is likely to be signed into law by the Governor, that version has been changed thanks to UTA members who participated in UTA’s first Nevada Lobby Day on May 1, 2013.

SB 321, the Homeowners Bill of Rights for Nevada, sailed through the Nevada State Senate, in fact picking up GOP sponsors along the way. With very few changes, it arrived in the Assembly.  With the clear intention of improving the bill, UTA members created a mark-up that provided technical corrections, clarifications and consistency to the original bill.

During Lobby Day, UTA members met first with the bill’s sponsor, Senator Justin Jones (D-Las Vegas) to provide him their suggestions.  Senator Jones listened for over an hour.  He directed UTA and its lobbyist, Cheryl Blomstrom, to create a document, a conceptual amendment, to present the following day to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary.  Of course, by committee rules, that meant submitting the changes before 5:00pm that same day.

And when asked for this level of intense work, UTA members responded with alacrity and cheerfulness. UTA needs to be justifiably proud of the efforts of these members.  While various meetings with legislators continued on their scheduled course, the team members rotated in and out of the room where the drafting was being done.

The resulting product was sent to the sponsor and to the Judiciary Committee and its chairman.  It addressed some key issues including points of consistency between the proposed bill and the Master Settlement Agreement as well as attempting to align some of the provisions with various California HOBR provisions to make doing business in both states easier for practitioners.

One of the important provisions was a clarification about dismissing cases in judicial foreclosure “with” or “without prejudice.”  We explained that “without prejudice” was the preferred language so that a modification could be attempted but, should it not be successful, the foreclosure could be completed. The sponsor accepted this change as well as most of the others we proposed.

A few of our proposals were not accepted by the sponsor including award of attorneys fees and costs to the prevailing party (rather than prevailing borrower), extended timelines before a foreclosure needs to be restarted in total (although our suggested language to toll the timelines during various borrower elected options, such as bankruptcy, any of the foreclosure mediation or loss mitigation alternatives or other delays outside the control of the trustee or lender).

We have submitted those changes to the committee for its consideration without the sponsor’s acceptance.  He is aware of this and acknowledges our responsibility to do so.

At this writing, the bill’s conclusion is not yet known.  However, I believe it will pass, as amended and including our ideas, and likely be signed by the Governor.  I am very grateful for the strong legal minds that both traveled to Carson City and then worked so hard during an entire day to forward our ideas. UTA is fortunate to have such dedicated members in its ranks!  Please join me in thanking Seth Adams, Michael Brooks, Cathe Cole-Sherburn, Neal Gidvani, Stephen Hicklin, Raymond Jereza, Rande Johnsen, Felita Kealing, Michelle Mierzwa, Benjamin Petiprin, Kristin Schuler-Hintz, Scott Sibley, Phillip Silverstri, Kathy Shakibi, Vivian Walker, and Robin Wright.