MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
May 21, 1993
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 12:00 p.m., on Friday, May 21, 1993, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
Senator R. Hal Smith, Vice Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Ernest E. Adler
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst
Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney's Association
Marsha L. Berkbigler, Consulting Engineers Council of Nevada
Pat Coward, Nevada Land Title Association
Joe Carpenter, Staff Attorney, Nevada Supreme Court
Larry D. Struve, Director, State of Nevada Department of Commerce
The chairman announced there would be a discussion of several items of business to come before the committee, prior to hearing those bills on the agenda. Senator James referred to Senate Bill (S.B.) 291, Assembly Bill (A.B.) 68, Senate Bill (S.B.) 242, Assembly Bill (A.B.) 297, Senate Bill (S.B.) 321, and Assembly Bill (A.B.) 199.
SENATE BILL 291: Makes various changes to provisions governing victims of crime.
ASSEMBLY BILL 68:Extends time in which action for damages for injury arising from sexual abuse of minor may be commenced.
Senator James indicated a conflict amendment to S.B. 291, with regard to A.B. 68 had been received from the assembly judiciary committee. Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Assistant, explained the conflict to the committee which dealt with the statute of limitations. Senator James indicated he wished to discuss the conflict with Assemblyman Robert Sader, chairman of the assembly committee.
SENATE BILL 242: Makes various changes regarding regulation of gaming.
ASSEMBLY BILL 297: Makes various changes relating to gaming.
Mr. Neilander explained S.B. 242 amended a section of the gaming law with regard to licensing and amended a provision which created a conflict with A.B. 297, a bill which authorized publicly traded corporations to hold gaming licenses.
SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO CONCUR IN THE CONFLICT AMENDMENT REGARDING S.B. 242 and A.B. 297.
SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 321: Requires director of department of prisons to establish by regulation reasonable deduction from money credited to account of offender to repay certain costs.
The chairman stated the assembly judiciary committee had made a substantive change to the bill which would "delete the payment of costs for proceedings which are held when an offender pleads or is found guilty of violating a rule." Mr. Neilander indicated the assembly committee felt there could be an abuse of procedure. Senator James disagreed with the assembly committee's action, stating he believed "procedural safeguards were built in." He said he would prefer to not concur in the amendment and discuss the matter with Mr. Sader.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO NOT CONCUR IN THE AMENDMENT TO S.B. 321.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 199: Creates crimes of stalking and aggravated stalking.
Senator James said the assembly judiciary committee would not concur in the amendments to the bill requested by the senate committee. He said one amendment involved having the crime of aggravated stalking carry a felony charge. Senator James indicated the other amendment regarded technical, constitutional language, and it was his intention to discuss this matter with Chairman Sader.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO NOT RECEDE FROM THE AMENDMENTS TO A.B. 199.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney's Association, approached the committee and stated the assembly committee chairman wished to discuss the matter of giving jurisdiction to the justice courts regarding the stalking crimes. Senator James indicated he would meet with Mr. Sader.
Senator James appointed Senator James, Senator McGinness and Senator Shaffer to a conference committee to meet with a conference committee appointed by Mr. Sader.
The chairman opened the meeting to those bills set forth on the agenda, i.e., Assembly Bill (A.B.) 481, Assembly Bill (A.B.) 522, and Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 31.
Senator Adler entered the room at 12:15 p.m.
ASSEMBLY BILL 481: Provides mechanics' lien on land and improvements for services of engineer, land surveyor or geologist.
The first to testify was Marsha L. Berkbigler, representing Consulting Engineers Council of Nevada. Ms. Berkbigler stated the bill would add engineers, land surveyors and geologists to the provisions of Nevada's current mechanics' lien law. She said currently the only recourse this group of persons has if they are not paid for work performed on real property is to file a lawsuit. Ms. Berkbigler said architects are included in the statute and added, "There is no real understanding why these other professions who do essentially the same thing architects do were left out of the law." She indicated similar legislation has been introduced in earlier sessions, but agreements have never been worked out with loan groups regarding the privacy issue. Ms. Berkbigler said A.B. 481 "would not put engineers, land surveyors or geologists in a position of privacy over the lender."
The next to speak was Pat Coward, representing Land Title Association. Mr. Coward stated he wished to propose an amendment to the bill, which is set forth on Exhibit C. He said the amendment "will guarantee priority for the lender" in a situation where work is performed before all financing is in place.
Ms. Berkbigler stated she had met with Mr. Sader, chairman of the assembly judiciary committee, who expressed no objection to the amendment set forth on Exhibit C, and Mr. Coward concurred.
There was no further testimony on A.B. 481 and the chairman closed the hearing on the bill. The hearing was opened on A.B. 522.
ASSEMBLY BILL 522: Makes various changes regarding program for court-annexed arbitration.
Appearing on behalf of Chief Justice Robert E. Rose was Joe Carpenter, Staff Attorney, Nevada Supreme Court. Mr. Carpenter advised that Chief Justice Rose described the bill as a "technical, clean-up proposal" which relates to the arbitration program enacted during the last session of the legislature. He said that program applies in Clark and Washoe counties. Mr. Carpenter indicated A.B. 522 does three things: (1) Resolves a conflict regarding arbitration of motor vehicle cases by repeal of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 38.215, which will consolidate those arbitration provisions; (2) Changes the provision which requires the court to participate in the training and certification of arbitrators by utilizing the resources of the National Judicial College, to allow training through the Center for Dispute Resolution; and (3) Requires arbitrators who serve in the court arbitration program to be deemed employees of the court for purposes of utilizing government immunity provisions. Mr. Carpenter also stated the bill provides that the justice courts may submit disputes to arbitration if the parties involved in the dispute agree.
There was no further testimony and the chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 522. He then opened the hearing on A.J.R. 31.
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 31: Urges Congress to require return of unclaimed securities distributions held by intermediaries to states from which they were paid.
SENATE BILL 226: Expands provision concerning circumstances under which state may take unclaimed property held by intermediary in another state.
The first to testify was Larry D. Struve, Director, State of Nevada Department of Commerce. Mr. Struve presented a prepared statement regarding A.J.R. 31, which is set forth as Exhibit D. He referred to the United States Supreme Court decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, which resulted in a large "windfall" to the State of Delaware. He added the court "acknowledged there was a meritorious argument on the part of the intervenor states;" and it recommended if states were not happy with the decision, they should address their concerns to Congress, so it could be rectified through legislation. Mr. Struve continued, "We are providing you through A.J.R. 31 the first opportunity for a state to speak to this issue
...this resolution will become a prototype that other state legislatures will use...." He said he was very confident there will be over 40 states which ask the United States Congress "to rectify this unjust decision...and see that any windfall goes to the states where the money originated." Senator James referred to S.B. 226 and asked if the United States Supreme Court decision had been issued after that legislation had been signed by the Governor. Mr. Struve answered affirmatively and commended the committee for taking the initiative in passing that bill. He said S.B. 226 "clarified Nevada's claim to this kind of property...." Mr. Struve said the principle was, "Abandoned property should go to the entity that originated the money...the corporation that issued the dividend or the city or state which issued the bond...." He continued, "If that entity is located in Nevada then a lost dividend which ended up in some intermediary's computer...should not go to the state where that intermediary office is located...." Mr. Struve stated Justice Thomas's decision said, "It is alright if the money goes to the state where the brokerage house is incorporated, because that is where the money wound up."
Senator James asked, "Is it better in Nevada's interest [for the money] to go to the state of incorporation because a lot of people incorporate here...? Mr. Struve said the way the bill is worded "...would give us maneuvering room in Congress...let's start by giving it to the states where the company is incorporated, since we have a lot of corporations in Nevada." He continued:
If it turns out we also have a lot of companies here that may be incorporated in Delaware, but do their principal business here...if the Congress considers this new rule regarding unclaimed property...they could put a modification where if you could show the principal business was done here, we would have a basis to lay a claim...which would be a fact-finding process once the property is located.
Mr. Struve indicated the attorney who represented the State of Nevada in the United States Supreme Court case "...is very comfortable with the language [of A.J.R. 31], because he wants this to be used all over the country."
Senator Adler asked if this legislation would apply to trusts held by banks for out-of-state customers, if no beneficiary could be found. Mr. Struve answered the trust laws of the various states would apply. He added A.J.R. 31 is mainly intended to cover securities.
Senator James again referred to S.B. 226 and stated, "We were asked to change the law to include 'otherwise located'...are they going to use that against us in Congress...and say we agree if it is otherwise located it ought to go to their state's unclaimed property?" Mr. Struve answered he did not know if Congress would use it against the State of Nevada. He added he wanted to get Congress "interested in introducing the legislation." Senator James stated for the record:
It is my intent...we were trying to do that to make the broadest possible inclusion for Nevada's rights...if that means otherwise located shouldn't be included, then it shouldn't be included.
Mr. Struve responded, "If we have the opportunity to craft the legislation...we could put in there a provision for a showing of evidence that you could go either way. Where they are principally doing their business is probably a fact question." Senator James responded, "It could be used against us...if they incorporate here and they do business elsewhere...they are going to use that against us and try to take the money away from Nevada." Mr. Struve responded:
You might be right...but I would like to point out we have 0.04 of 1 percent of the nation's population...and whether we get 'state of incorporation' or 'place of principal business'...we will probably be ahead in sharing this pot...than we are under the current system and Justice Thomas' decision.
There was no further testimony on A.J.R. 31.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS A.J.R. 31.
SENATOR ADLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 522.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Marilyn Hofmann,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Judiciary
May 21, 1993
Page 1