MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Subcommittee on Commerce and Labor

 

Seventy-First Session

April 2, 2001

 

 

The Subcommittee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 1:20 p.m., on Monday, April 2, 2001.  Chairwoman Barbara Buckley presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Ms.                     Barbara Buckley, Chairwoman

Mr.                     Bob Beers

Ms.                     Sheila Leslie

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst

Dawn Lee, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Ms. Renee Diamond, Administrator, State of Nevada, Department of Business and Industry, Manufactured Housing Division

Mr. Charles W. Joerg, Nevada Manufactured Housing Association

 

 

Chairwoman Buckley dispensed with the roll call, noting all members of the subcommittee were present, and opened the hearing on A.B. 203.

 

Assembly Bill 203:  Revises provisions governing manufactured housing. (BDR 43-560)

 

Chairwoman Buckley commented there were few problems with the bill, but there were a few questions.  Her understanding was that an amendment had been agreed upon.  She proceeded to call forward Ms. Renee Diamond, Administrator, Department of Business and Industry, and Mr. Charles Joerg with the Nevada Manufactured Housing Association.

 

Chairwoman Buckley stated they would then proceed to work through the bill from beginning to end, make sure all the changes were understood, and work out any problem areas.  She started with Section 1 and mentioned there had been some drafting errors that required the removal of travel trailers and lessees.  Additionally, she had a question on page 2, lines 11 and 12, “relating to an act for which a license is required . . .” that had been previously directed to Ms. Diamond.  Ms. Buckley indicated that Ms. Diamond had responded under current law the recovery fund was limited to acts for which a license was required and the language was more for clarification than any change in existing law.  Ms. Buckley then asked Ms. Diamond if her understanding on that point was correct.

 

Ms. Diamond concurred and stated it mirrored language elsewhere in the recovery fund statutes.

 

Chairwoman Buckley called for questions or problems with Section 1 and recognized Mr. Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst.

 

Mr. Hughey questioned the removal of travel trailers from Section 1, subsection 1, lines 6 and 7.  The term also appeared in Section 1, subsection 1, line 10, but there was no proposal to remove them from that portion of the subsection.

 

Chairwoman Buckley mentioned it appeared to be existing law and invited Ms. Diamond to comment.

 

Ms. Diamond agreed with Chairwoman Buckley and explained it related to the education portion of the education and recovery fund.  The beginning of that part of the statute deleted it from the recovery part of the fund.

 

Chairwoman Buckley moved on to Section 2 and asked Ms. Diamond if travel trailers needed to be eliminated there as well.

 

Ms. Diamond stated lessees and travel trailers both needed to be removed from lines 14 and 15.  It referred to judgments against the recovery fund and that would not be done against travel trailers.  She continued with information that the travel trailer industry was not regulated in a substantive manner.  The recovery fund was always meant to deal solely with mobile and manufactured homes.

 

Chairwoman Buckley asked if the committee had any problems with the removal of those terms.  Seeing none, she moved on to a concern she had on line 18, “specified in subsection 3 of NRS 489.4971 . . .” and inquired of Ms. Diamond as to the intent of that particular language.

 

Ms. Diamond felt the bill drafters had done that and related it back to Section 1 as opposed to restating, as they do further on in the bill, it would be for fraud, misrepresentation, etc.

 

Chairwoman Buckley polled the committee regarding problems with that concern.  Seeing none, she moved on to line 23, where the language would be changed from “$25,000 per claimant” to a “per judgment” provision.

 

Ms. Diamond stated she would like to see that changed.

 

Chairwoman Buckley commented she had been opposed to that change at first, but Ms. Diamond had persuaded her and asked Ms. Diamond to state the policy driving the request.

 

Ms. Diamond began by stating the entire section mirrored the real estate section.  It was felt the change to per judgment would tie it more firmly to the actual court action and was recommended by the Attorney General for her department.

 

Chairwoman Buckley asked if a couple was married and defrauded in the amount of $200,000 by a dealer, would they be limited to a total of $25,000 in reparations instead of $50,000.

 

Ms. Diamond said that was correct.  She shared her personal opinion that, were equal amounts to be awarded to married spouses, it would be discriminatory to those persons who purchased and were not married.  If a claim did go to the $110,000 range, then the change would not give anyone more status than a person who was single.  She felt it was very clear that the legislation was meant to make a maximum of a $25,000 payment.  If a judgment was to go over $100,000, each claimant’s payment would be reduced equally so no one would get a disproportionate amount.  This would stop an action from going to court every time there was a spousal arrangement where both parties would try to get 25 percent, thus making it unequal to other people who had claims.

 

Chairwoman Buckley agreed it was probably fair given the current state of the fund and asked if the committee agreed with that assessment.  Hearing no problems from the committee, she continued on to the next point and asked Ms. Diamond her opinion about the extra paperwork entailed in a writ of execution when there would be nothing left to execute upon.  She suggested if there were no known assets, the writ of execution would not have to be applied for.

 

Ms. Diamond responded that the Attorneys General for her division in the past two years had all felt very strongly about the issue.  Her personal opinion was, because they had not always been notified a claim existed, it served as an end product.

 

Chairwoman Buckley interjected it did not gain anything and was useless and a paper exercise only.

 

Ms. Diamond stated it had a value for the purposes of the agency.  It brought a claim to conclusion and indicated that an effort had been made.

 

Mr. Beers questioned if a less thorough, enthusiastic attorney could attempt to collect against the fund rather than attempt to collect against the defunct dealer.

 

Chairwoman Buckley directed the question to Ms. Diamond with the comment that she had never had a case of a defunct dealer where there was anything left.  If they did, the assets were placed in someone else’s name, which was the reason why the recovery fund was created.  It kept people from having to spend thousands of dollars to likely get nothing.

 

Ms. Diamond did state there had been an occasion where an attorney in Las Vegas tried to shortcut the process.  It turned out there were some assets available at the time.  Her agency only learned about it afterwards.  It was a dealer who had gone out of business but had other assets.

 

Chairwoman Buckley asked why it was not possible to require a writ of execution only where there were other assets.

 

Ms. Diamond said they had always required the writ of execution.  Additionally, her Attorneys General were very strong on the issue of continuing with the requirement.

 

Chairwoman Buckley indicated she was in favor of not requiring the writ of execution in the absence of assets.  She recommended the subcommittee not require a writ unless assets were present.

 

Chairwoman Buckley then moved the committee on to the final changes in Section 3 and asked if there were any problems.

 

Ms. Diamond asked if the addition of the language on the petition stating the grounds for the petition would be brought before the committee as a whole.  Chairwoman Buckley indicated that would be the case.

 

Ms. Diamond felt bound to point out that her Attorney General two years ago had developed the language dealing with writs of execution and had felt it very necessary to deal with the completion of the information for the file on a claim.

 

Chairwoman Buckley reassured Ms. Diamond that she understood her testimony and asked if they could move on to the proposed amendment (Exhibit C).

 

Ms. Diamond introduced the amendment, authored by Mr. Joerg’s association.  In the past, her agency educated dealers, salespeople, responsible managing employees, and service people.  The educational provision was removed from the statutory authority six years ago.  The education of service people had since been returned to statutory authority.  The amendment before the committee would return to statutory authority the education of responsible managing employees and salespeople.  Ms. Diamond felt it should be placed in the section for the renewal of their biennial licenses.  It would be offered in increments each year so people could attain the necessary education at their convenience.  The division felt with more education it would be less likely to have a need to use the recovery fund.

 

Chairwoman Buckley recognized Mr. Charles Joerg, representing Nevada Manufactured Housing Association.

 

Mr. Joerg commented he had been instrumental in eliminating the previous provisions for continuing education.  The Association had now come back to a point where they wanted continuing education as a matter of good policy for the dealers and for the state.  He approached Ms. Diamond two or three weeks ago and asked if A.B. 203 could be used as a vehicle to implement that goal this session instead of waiting for two years.  He had also discussed it with Chairwoman Buckley prior to the hearing.  Everyone was in agreement that it could be done.

 

Chairwoman Buckley stated she felt it should not have been repealed in the past and asked the committee for questions.

 

Mr. Beers noted the proposed amendments were significantly different, in his opinion, from the topic originally covered in A.B. 203.  It was his feeling that it should be brought back as a whole amendment for the deliberation of the full committee.

 

Chairwoman Buckley stated that it certainly would be done in that manner.  She clarified the bill was being used as a vehicle so that, should it pass the subcommittee, it could go to the committee as a whole for consideration.  In such an eventuality, the report of the subcommittee would mention it was different, but it had the industry’s and the state’s concurrence.

 

Chairwoman Buckley asked for a recommendation from the committee and recognized Ms. Leslie.

 

Ms. Leslie suggested they recommend to the full committee to amend and do pass with the amendments reviewed in the hearing on that day.  She also conveyed her support for a writ of execution being produced only in the event of assets available.  She did not feel the arguments for retention of a writ in every case were persuasive.

 

Chairwoman Buckley suggested it might be rephrased to clarify in the language that, if there were assets, a writ of execution would still be required.

 

Mr. Beers seconded the motion.

 

the motion carried unanimously.

 

Chairwoman Buckley adjourned the meeting at 1:36 p.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

Dawn Lee

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: