MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
January 28, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:05 a.m., Thursday January 28, 1993, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. (Exhibit A) is the Meeting Agenda, (Exhibit B) is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Robert M. Sader, Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr John C. Bonaventura
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.
Mr. James A. Gibbons
Mr. William D. Gregory
Mr. William A. Petrak
Mr. John B. Regan
Mr. Scott Scherer
Ms. Stephanie Smith
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Ken L. Haller Absent/Excused
Mr. Gene T. Porter, Vice Chairman Absent/Excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Denice Miller, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Robert Faiss, Lionel Sawyer and Collins, Counsel of the Nevada Resort Association
Mr. Bob Barengo, Nevada Consumer Finance Association
Mr. Guy Schaffer, Nevada Consumer Finance Association
Ms. Mary Santina, Retail Association of Nevada
Mr. Mike Gach, Security Manager of Macy's in Reno
Mr. Ernest Cuno, Nevada Association of Employers
Also see attached guest list (Exhibit B)
After the secretary called roll, Mr. Sader began the hearing on AB 51.
ASSEMBLY BILL 51 -
Clarifies fee on collection of credit instruments held by certain gaming licensees.
Mr. Sader called Mr. Robert D. Faiss, Lionel Sawyer and Collins, Counsel of the Nevada Resort Association, to testify in behalf of AB 51. Mr. Faiss provided the committee with written testimony (Exhibit C). Mr. Faiss pointed out AB 51 would amend NRS 463.3857. Mr. Faiss explained AB 51 clarified the percentage fee should be fairly assessed on every dollar earned from gaming operations, whether the licensee collected the dollar while he was still in business or after he had gone out of business. Mr. Faiss further supplied a copy of Regulation 6.125 for the committee which was adopted by the Nevada Gaming Commission (Exhibit D). Mr. Faiss also supplied the committee with a letter from Mr. William Bible, Chairman of the Gaming Control Board (Exhibit E), which provided a subsection by subsection summary explanation of the amendments contained in AB 51.
There being no further testimony Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 51.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS AB 51.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLY BILL 48 -
Extends period for perfection of purchase money security interest.
Mr. Bob Barengo, Nevada Consumer Finance Association, came forward to testify as the requesting agency for AB 48. Mr. Barengo was assisted by Mr. Guy Schaffer who also was a member of Nevada Consumer Finance Association. Mr. Schaffer explained AB 48 extended the time to file a UCC financing statement. Currently there were 10 days in Nevada to file a UCC financing statement and it was important to have this extended to 20 days because of the time it takes to do business. Mr. Schaffer pointed out other states had 20 days to file.
Mr. Sader pinpointed the issue was the period of time the seller or lender had to file a document called the UCC 1 with the Secretary of State. Mr. Sader further explained the UCC 1 filing dealt with priority security interest on equipment or property used as collateral on a business loan or purchase.
Mr. Sader questioned Mr. Schaffer why the filing period needed to be extended from 10 days to 20 days. Mr. Schaffer explained the main reason was it would not be possible to get a priority
security interest within 10 days. Mr. Schaffer said it took approximately 10 days to obtain purchase money and process lending interest.
Mr. Sader said AB 48 primarily dealt with a change to the Uniform Commercial Code. He clarified the Uniform Commercial Code set the rules for commercial transactions in all 50 states including Nevada. Mr. Sader suggested the criteria of uniformity be looked at since commercial transactions particularly in Nevada took place across state lines. Mr. Barengo provided the committee with a statistical chart (Exhibit F) and explained the majority of the states allowed 20 days to file.
Mr. Toomin asked if there was a downside to the passage of AB 48. Mr. Barengo explained there was not since the lender would be allowed to lend the funds in order for a recipient to acquire the desired assets. Therefore, the lender should be able to get a first lien position on that piece of collateral. Mr. Carpenter inquired if AB 48 would affect bankruptcy. Mr. Barengo confirmed AB 48 would help in the case of bankruptcy because there would be an extra 10 days to get the lien protected.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 48.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO DO PASS AB 48.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
ASSEMBLY BILL 52 -
Imposes civil liability against person who is convicted of larceny or certain other crimes, or who damages property on merchant's premises.
Ms. Mary Santina, Retail Association of Nevada, stepped forward to testify in support of AB 52. Mr. Mike Gach, Security Manager of Macy's in Reno, Nevada, and Mr. Ernest Cuno, Nevada Association of Employers, assisted in Ms. Santina's presentation.
Mr. Gach supplied the committee with written testimony (Exhibit G) which discussed AB 52 with regard to restitution of property to a victim of larceny or property damage. Mr. Gach said AB 52 extended the Nevada shoplifting law to cover a person who damaged a merchant's property.
Mr. Cuno supported enactment of AB 52 because it gave employers an opportunity not available to them now to recover losses sustained through theft and vandalism.
Mr. Sader explained section 1 of AB 52 dealt with new language where a judge, after convicting an individual of a criminal judgment, could sign an order of restitution which required the criminal to pay back the amount of the value of the property that had been stolen, lost or damaged.
Mr. Sader said AB 52 section 2 was a minor revision of NRS 598.033 with regard to damaged or stolen property.
Mr. Scherer asked Mr. Cuno if an individual was civilly liable under section 1 of AB 52 even though no order of restitution was issued. Mr. Cuno answered no, in order for someone to be civilly liable the person had to be sued. Without an order of restitution, the court could not establish the amount of damages and liability the defendant owed the victim. Mr. Scherer suggested section 2 of AB 52 should also cover fair market value since it was a more appropriate measure of damage in the case of a fixture that was damaged in a merchant's store than the term retail value. Mr. Cuno had no objections to the suggested language.
Because of past problems with courts not giving full compensation of shoplifted items, Mr. Sader suggested the following language for page 1 line 22, "For the retail value of the merchandise or the fair market value of other property."
Ms. Smith inquired if this bill pertained to individuals and homes and was there any recourse in that area. Ms. Smith noticed the first part of the bill did not strictly refer to merchants. Mr. Gach explained if someone's private property was stolen and not recovered, there were grounds for a civil suit.
Mr. Scherer suggested language on page 1, section 1, line 9 to remove the wording "merchants" and insert the word "the victims," in section 2 on line 22 insert the words "fair market value of" between the words "or" and the word "other" and on page 2 in section 3 line 7 insert "for the fair market value of other property" after the word "merchandise".
There being no further testimony, Mr. Sader closed the hearing on AB 52.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 52.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 8.45 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
CHANDRA PENDERLAND
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Judiciary
January 28, 1993
Page: 1