MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary

 

Seventy-First Session

February 19, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 9:09 a.m., on Monday, February 19, 2001.  Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 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.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.                     Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr.                     Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman

Mrs.                     Sharron Angle

Mr.                     Greg Brower

Ms.                     Barbara Buckley

Mr.                     Jerry Claborn

Mr.                     Tom Collins

Mr.                     Don Gustavson

Mrs.                     Ellen Koivisto

Ms.                     Kathy McClain

Mr.                     Dennis Nolan

Mr.                     John Oceguera

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mr.                     John Carpenter - Excused

Ms.                     Genie Ohrenschall - Excused

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst

Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel

Cheryl O'Day, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Nancy Hart, Deputy Attorney General

Patricia Lynch, Reno City Attorney

Kathrine I. Berning, Chief Deputy Reno City Attorney, Criminal Division

M. Veronica Frenkel, State of Nevada Domestic Violence Ombudsman

Gemma Greene Waldron, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office

Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney’s Association

Brett Jefferson, P.L.S., W.R.S., Vice President, Tri-State Surveying Ltd.

David C. Crook, P.L.S., W.R.S., Principal, Tri-State Surveying Ltd.

Alan Glover, Carson City Recorder

 

 

• BDR 3-192 - Provides various changes concerning damages that may be awarded in tort actions against certain government entities and their officers and employees.  (A.B. 178)

 

Chairman Anderson introduced BDR 3-192 on behalf of the Interim Committee on Limitations regarding damages that may be awarded against the state and its political subdivision, which Committee Chairman Anderson chaired.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 3-192.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

The Chair called for discussion on the Manendo/Claborn motion and a vote in favor of committee introduction of BDR 3-192.

 

            THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS AND ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN WHO WERE NOT PRESENT.

 

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 107.

 

 

Assembly Bill 107:  Clarifies that person convicted of battery constituting domestic violence within 7 years before or after principal offense has committed prior offense for purposes of determining penalty. (BDR 15-481)

 

Chairman Anderson read A.B. 107.  Principal supporters of the legislation were from the Attorney General’s Office.  Ms. Nancy Hart was called forward to testify.

 

Nancy Hart, Deputy Attorney General, introduced herself and outlined that the Attorney General’s Office submitted the bill on behalf of the Domestic Violence Prevention Council.  Ms. Hart also informed the committee that Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa chaired the DVPC.

 

Ms. Hart continued that the 1997 legislative session approved various changes to Nevada’s domestic violence laws that strengthened Nevada’s response to domestic violence (Exhibit C).  One significant change was the “enhancements” for second, third and any consecutive domestic battery offenses that were provided at NRS 200.485 (form of battery constituting domestic violence; penalties; definitions).  The bill before the committee, A.B. 107, was needed to clarify what constituted “a prior offense” under that statute.

 

Ms. Hart outlined how current Nevada law allowed only a domestic battery offense committed prior to the principal offense to be counted for purposes of determining whether the principal offense was a misdemeanor, a first or second offense, or a felony, which was a third or subsequent offense.  She stated that a problem occurred when a defendant had more than one domestic battery case pending before the court system at one time.  She used the example of a defendant being arrested for domestic battery in May and again in July where the July offense proceeded to conviction first.  In that case, the May offense would probably not be considered a second offense, because the July offense was not committed prior to the May offense.  She opined that the present bill would amend the domestic battery statute (NRS 200.485) to resolve that problem.  Further, the amendments paralleled the language in the driving under the influence law at NRS 484.3792, paragraph 2, and amended NRS 200.485 to include a definition of “offense” similar to that contained in NRS 484.3792.

 

Ultimately, an offense would be one that occurred within the seven years immediately preceding the date of the principal offense or after the principal offense, without regard to the sequence of the offenses and convictions.  Further, that the proposed legislation would be an important clarification to the enhancement statute, which Ms. Hart expected would increase batterer accountability and enhance victim safety.

 

Lastly, Ms. Hart advised the Judiciary Committee that on February 16, 2001, the Attorney General’s Office received a letter from Las Vegas City Attorney Ben Little with respect to a proposed amendment to the bill.  Since the Las Vegas City Attorney was a member of the Domestic Violence Prevention Council, Ms. Hart agreed to convey copies of that letter to this committee (Exhibit D).  She reiterated that the DVPC had not taken a position on the proposed amendments.  She then offered to answer questions.

 

Ms. Hart introduced Reno City Attorney, Patricia Lynch, a member of DVPC.

 

Chairman Anderson requested that any other persons appearing in association with Ms. Hart and Ms. Lynch be called forward to the witness table.  The Chair then addressed the committee members as to any questions for Ms. Hart.

 

Mr. Gustavson asked whether A.B. 107 affected an offense that took place prior to the primary offense (ex post facto)?

 

Ms. Hart clarified that the ex post facto law applied to convictions and prosecutions and A.B. 107 was for enhancement purposes.  She did not believe there would be ex post facto consequences.  As stated, the proposed legislation was to provide prosecutors with the ability to look forward and behind an offense in order to calculate whether it was a first or second offense.  The proposed legislation did not apply to whether or not someone was being convicted which would imply the ex post facto issue.

 

Patricia Lynch, elected Reno City Attorney and cochairman of the Legislative Committee for the Nevada Domestic Violence Prevention Council testified as to her support for A.B. 107.  She stated that A.B. 107 was drafted to mirror the statutes applicable to driving while under the influence and, for whatever reason, that one provision was not included.  She attributed the fact that it was not already a part of the existing statutes as simply being an oversight.

 

Mr. Gustavson then readdressed his question as to ex post facto laws to Ms. Lynch and Ms. Berning.

 

Ms. Berning echoed Ms. Hart’s position that the proposed legislation was in the nature of enhancement only.

 

Testifying alongside Ms. Lynch was Kathrine Berning, Chief Criminal Deputy, of the Reno City Attorney’s Office.

 

Ms. Buckley inquired of Ms. Lynch and Ms. Berning as to their opinions of the Las Vegas City Attorney’s proposed amendment.

 

Ms. Lynch stated that the council did not have a chance to review the amendment and, consequently, the council did not have a position.  Ms. Lynch, however, did state that her office had not had much experience in the Reno Municipal Court with the issues addressed in the amendment.

 

In response to Ms. Buckley’s question, Ms. Berning stated that multiple offenses were usually pursued as multiple cases.  The Reno City Attorney’s Office had shown the policy of attempting to hold the perpetrator accountable in any manner possible.  While Reno Municipal Court judges traditionally heard information regarding other offenses at sentencing, contemporary interpretation held that a conviction was necessary before proceeding with any form of enhancement.  She advised that they had not dealt with very many cases of multiple offenses because they generally dealt with one offense after another.

 

Another situation that occurred, in Ms. Berning’s experience, was a communication problem with the district attorney’s office.  Generally, they were unable to proceed on cases as felonies until the city attorney’s office had obtained convictions.  Although her office’s experience had been limited, she would completely support the Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office with regard to their interest in the proposed legislation.  She concurred that it would be helpful in holding perpetrators accountable.

 

Ms. Buckley advised that she viewed the proposed legislation as rather messy and that it brought up the concept of a “case within a case.”  Her additional concern was that judges might not invest the time or inclination to pursue the issue and that the original bill might become bogged down.

 

Ms. Lynch concurred that the issue could be somewhat problematic and, due to the Reno City Attorney’s Office’s lack of experience with the issue, she stated that her office would defer to the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office.

 

Ms. Berning agreed that the Reno City Attorney’s Office processed offenses case-by-case for the reasons discussed.  She informed the committee that the Reno City Attorney’s Office noted the files so that as each offense was incurred they would move for enhancements based on the conviction of the first offense.

 

Mr. Brower agreed with Ms. Buckley’s concerns.  Although he liked the original bill and the original intent, he felt the effectiveness of the bill required a clearer definition of “a prior.”  He also voiced his worry that the issues might become “muddied up.”  He felt the proposed amendment complicated the original bill.

 

Chairman Anderson concurred with Mr. Brower.  With regard to page 2 of the letter drafted by the Las Vegas City Attorney, Chairman Anderson asked the witnesses why the district attorney’s office should be required to wait for a perpetrator to be convicted on the first two offenses before they could otherwise prove a sentence beyond a reasonable doubt.  In his opinion the reason “cuts to the very heart” of the issue, wherein the possibility arose that a perpetrator could avoid the full responsibility of a felony domestic violence conviction merely because the enhanced statute was used and the first two convictions, or either one of them, were not proven to be true.

 

Patricia Lynch advised that when she spoke with Mr. Little, the Las Vegas City Attorney, he advised her that the issue raised in committee would not be a concern in that a case would need to be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  She acknowledged Ms. Buckley’s issue of “a trial within a trial” and confirmed that the Reno City Attorney’s Office was allowed to and had introduced whatever information they required at sentencing in order to enhance that sentence.  She deferred to the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office to perhaps respond further.

 

M. Veronica Frenkel, State of Nevada Domestic Violence Ombudsman, appeared before the committee and testified on her perspective as to the need for those changes to Nevada law recommended in A.B. 107.

 

Ms. Frenkel reiterated the proposed bill was submitted by Attorney General’s Office on behalf of the Nevada Domestic Violence Prevention Council.  In her role as ombudsman, she had heard from numerous prosecutors throughout the state on issues that involved domestic violence prosecution under NRS 200.485, the domestic battery statute (Exhibit E).  Particularly given the concerns related to the chronology of offenses and convictions, she specifically recalled conversations with the Elko County District Attorney and the Humboldt County District Attorney on those same topics.  She allowed that there had been many circumstances where laws had been revisited and clarified in light of what was learned in the implementation process.  The challenge with implementation of statute NRS 200.485 provided prosecutors such an opportunity.  She believed the proposed bill suggested a simple but necessary clarification as it offered a clear definition of what constituted an offense under the statute.  If approved, Ms. Frenkel believed those changes would provide support to prosecutors and courts throughout the state so that the statute was enforced in a consistent manner.  She requested favorable consideration by the Judiciary Committee and offered to answer any questions the committee wished to pose.

 

Chairman Anderson polled the committee for questions addressed to Ms. Frenkel.  When no questions were offered, Chairman Anderson excused Ms. Frenkel and called forward Mr. Graham and Ms. Waldron.

 

Gemma Waldron, Washoe County Deputy District Attorney, also represented the Nevada District Attorney’s Association when she testified in support of A.B. 107.  She stated she had been assigned to a specialized team within the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office called the Domestic Violence Protection Team that dealt with domestic violence cases on a daily basis.  Ms. Waldron dealt with one case in particular that demonstrated the need for the proposed legislation.  The defendant in that case was charged with domestic battery against his girlfriend in April, May, June and July 2000.  He was also charged with a felony offense wherein the girlfriend was a witness but not the victim.  She further explained to the committee as to how, as a matter of procedure, Reno Justice Court processed felonies before misdemeanors, so that defendant’s felony charge was heard before the misdemeanors.  Consequently, the defendant was not convicted of any domestic battery even though he had four charges pending.  When the cases were finally concluded, and she advised they had negotiated the cases, the defendant ultimately pled guilty to three first-time domestic battery offenses.  The felony domestic battery charge was dissolved.  In that global resolution, the court warned the defendant that although he had pled to three first-time domestic battery charges, should he be arrested on another domestic battery charge, that later charge would be prosecuted as a felony.  That resolution was required by the district attorney’s office interpretation of the law, as she believed district attorneys statewide so interpreted the law so they could not, under the current language, proceed with enhancements without a prior conviction.  The sample defendant had no prior conviction; he had four pending charges, but no prior charges.  Under language previously legislated, district attorneys were required to await the next offense and conviction prior to any enhancement.  Under existing language, the sample defendant incurred four first-time domestic battery charges.  However, should that particular defendant be charged with another domestic battery offense, it would be processed as a felony since he had three prior convictions at the time the fifth domestic battery offense was committed.

 

Ms. Buckley asked for a reiteration of the timing of the offenses.  Ms. Waldron responded that they were carried out in April, May, June and July 2000.  Ms. Buckley then inquired why, if the district attorney’s office felt that defendant received a diminished sentence by virtue of circumstances, did the district attorney’s office not simply continue with the case.  Why plea-bargain to three first-time sentences?  Further, why would the district attorney’s office not insist on a trial on the first charge so they could then proceed for enhancements on the second offense?  Was this option within the control of the district attorney’s office?

 

Ms. Waldron asserted that those options were somewhat within the purview of district attorneys.  What complicated the situation was the felony charge early in the process, in May 2000, which Reno Justice Court chose to prosecute first.  The defendant then continued to incur misdemeanor domestic violence battery charges against the same victim.  By the time the felony was heard in Reno Justice Court, the defendant had three domestic battery charges against him and the witness had become hostile to the proceeding.  Ms. Waldron also advised that she was the deputy district attorney assigned to all of that particular defendant’s cases.  Further, every time there was a new arrest, the officers would e-mail her to advise of the current arrest.

 

Ms. Buckley clarified her support for the original bill but not for the amendment.  She believed there were tools available to prosecutors without statutes being rewritten or the prosecution of a “case within a case.”  As opposed to the three plea-bargained, first-time offenses, as in the discussed case, she felt it better for district attorneys to proceed for conviction on a first offense, then move to a second offense with requested enhancement.

 

Ms. Waldron clarified that Ms. Buckley’s example was how she understood A.B. 107 would actually function.  Ms. Waldron then described how A.B. 107 would allow district attorneys to prosecute multiple cases of such complexity.  In the sample case, it would not have mattered whether the district attorney’s office packaged multiple charges.  That defendant had not been convicted at any point previous to the domestic battery offenses for which he was prosecuted.  Ms. Waldron testified that, had this bill been in place, she could have gone forward on the first charge and then, if not the May battery perhaps the June or July battery, she could have prosecuted those cases and ensured that the defendant was sentenced for felony domestic battery.  She attributed the fact that the defendant was not convicted on any battery charge, even when he committed subsequent offenses, to the district attorneys’ mandatory interpretation of the law under the current language structure.

 

Ms. Buckley acknowledged the distinction.

 

Chairman Anderson requested clarification as to why it was not possible, when a district attorney had a third domestic violence misdemeanor such as the felony event exhibited by the sample cases, that there was no ability to ensure first and second events were tried prior to any additional offense.  He identified a perceived lack of priority for domestic violence cases within the court as a classic example of “justice delayed is justice denied,” where the justice delayed was not to the perpetrator of the crime but to the victim.

 

Ben Graham, on behalf of the Nevada District Attorney’s Association, prefaced his response to Chairman Anderson’s question with remarks that his accumulative experience directed him toward the bill as drafted, and away from the amendment.  He felt that although the desire was pure, the proposed manner was probably not and, as the bill was written, there was litigation that had already favorably resolved many of the issues raised in the amendment.  He stated his concern if the amendment was adopted as proposed, although well intended, it would invite years of litigation and possibly jeopardize the overall structure of that statute.  He suggested this was not a possibility prosecutors would want to occur.

 

Mr. Graham discussed how there were situations where multiple-DUI cases faced the same problem confronted in the proposed legislation.  For example, one case would be heard in Department 1, one in Department 3 and another in Department 5.  With the courts’ traditional caseloads and the number of active cases, there were no good ways to track those situations.  He confirmed that prosecutors would attempt to ensure that multiple cases fell within a proper sequence to move for enhanced penalties, but that it did not always occur.  Mr. Graham echoed the sentiments of previous committee witnesses with regard to the frustration experienced by not only prosecutors but by domestic violence victims and witnesses alike.

 

Mr. Graham allowed that his remarks to this committee were not particularly heartening but most likely demonstrated why offenses were often heard and prosecuted in a less than efficient manner.  He recalled Ms. Waldron’s indications that defendants had the right to be confronted by the witnesses against them, even when prosecutors were required to call upon reluctant or hostile witnesses.  He confirmed that frustration and lack of cooperation were not uncommon in cases such as abuse and made drawing the case to trial in good fashion even more difficult for prosecutors.  Often it was difficult to ensure that the victim was present, much less garner their cooperation in a structured trial setting.

 

Chairman Anderson inquired whether there was some way for either a city attorney’s office, a district attorney’s office or even the Attorney General’s Office to recognize a case under the misdemeanor statute.  His interest was to ensure that those cases received a higher priority within the court setting so they might be prosecuted as the statute had outlined.  Also, there may be other applications for that concern other than DUI’s and domestic battery.  Were there no opportunities to do so?

 

Gemma Waldron responded that, at least within Washoe County’s sphere of influence, it was perceived as the courts’ belief that a felony case was the more serious charge.  Consequently, if felony and misdemeanor charges were pending at the same time, the felony should be heard first.  The felony case was then classified as more serious and was heard first without consideration of ramifications to the misdemeanor proceeding, even when the misdemeanor offense occurred first.

 

Ms. Buckley related her belief that part of the confusion was from the original bill and testimony, and believed discussion had become somewhat commingled.  As she understood, one of the resolutions hoped for in the original bill was that if one had a perpetrator who committed three offenses in three consecutive months and, for example, obtained a conviction on Offense No. 2, first, followed by proceedings on Offenses Nos. 1 or 3, prosecutors could then use that conviction for enhancement purposes when the next judgment came before the court.  What she wished to clarify was that the record would not require a conviction before the offender was charged the second time.

 

One would ultimately need a conviction before an enhancement, but there were interpretations of the law that said, “before you charge you have to have the conviction.”  The conviction would be available upon which to move for enhancement but neither the order nor the timing would matter any longer.  She felt the amendment sought to “muck up” the proposed legislation and it was unnecessary as long as prosecutors made their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Gemma Waldron reiterated that the proposed legislation would be a great tool for those who “fight in the trenches every day” against those situations.  She included victims who did not wish to appear in court in her remarks.  Also, when a case was delayed for whatever reason, at least those obstacles did not hamper prosecutors’ ability to enhance; such as in the case of the gentleman she discussed earlier whom she opined should be in jail but who was “walking around with three first.”

 

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Waldron to clarify that her position was in favor of the bill as it was presented, without amendment.  Ms. Waldron confirmed that Chairman Anderson understood her position correctly.

 

Patricia Lynch requested the opportunity to add one item to Chairman Anderson’s discussion with Ms. Waldron.  She stated that Ms. Waldron’s remarks pointed out the necessity for prosecutors to “red flag” multiple cases, to make them higher priorities.  She also strongly suggested the possibility of prosecutors communicating with one another across departmental lines, with city attorneys contacting district attorneys and vice versa.  She felt that prosecutors needed to compare who had what case, avoid rushed plea-bargains, and focus each office’s operating system so more responsibility was required from defendants.

 

Sue Meuschke, Executive Director of the Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, addressed the committee as a member of the Domestic Violence Prevention Council and showed her support for A.B. 107 as drafted.  She also wished to go on record as stating that “the domestic violence community” was in support of the bill.  She spoke of her belief that the testimony given on the proposed bill and its amendment had provided the committee with some good ideas as to why battered women were often unwilling to work with the system when the system in question was as confusing, scary, unpredictable and frustrating as was just demonstrated.  Having faith in that system’s ability to protect was sometimes very difficult for victims.  Ms. Meuschke hoped that legislation would clarify and clean up the system and that said system would become more responsive to victims’ needs.  For that reason, the Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence supported the proposed legislation and requested the committee’s support as well.

 

Chairman Anderson addressed Ms. Paula Berkley in the audience and confirmed that her issues had been addressed and that she would not be speaking.  He also called on Captain Jim Nadeau of the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office to confirm that he would not need the opportunity to speak before the committee.  Chairman Anderson also elicited from Captain Nadeau that he had signed in to the meeting as in favor of the proposed legislation and Captain Nadeau confirmed his position.

 

Chairman Anderson called forward Mr. Richard Wilkie of the City of Henderson in support of the legislation.  The Chair also acknowledged the presence of Mr. J.J. Jackson on behalf of the Nevada Criminal Defense Lawyers and took note for the record of his support for A.B. 107, without the proposed amendment.

 

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 107 with instructions to bring it back to committee.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 107 WITHOUT AMENDMENT.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Anderson then assigned A.B. 107 to Ms. McClain for introduction to the full Assembly on behalf of the committee on Judiciary.

 

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 126.

 

 

Assembly Bill 126:  Revises provision regarding recording of certain documents relating to real property. (BDR 10-842)

 

Chairman Anderson stated for the record that he was the sponsor of A.B. 126 before he moved to the witness table and Mr. Manendo assumed responsibility for the meeting.

 

After calling the hearing back to order, Vice Chair Manendo acknowledged that A.B. 126 was Mr. Anderson’s legislation and invited him to address the committee.

 

Mr. Anderson thanked Vice Chairman Manendo and advised the committee the proposed legislation revolved around continued problems experienced by the state surveyors’ association.  Mr. Anderson then introduced Mr. Brett Jefferson and Mr. David Crook who were practicing surveyors and who represented their association (Exhibit F).  It was at their request that Mr. Anderson introduced A.B. 126.  Further, although it was meant to clarify a small anomaly in the law, Mr. Anderson had asked them to explain the proposal importance and effect.

 

Mr. Anderson continued that, since the publication of the bill, there had been at least one proposed language amendment come forward that would apparently not be objected to by Messrs. Jefferson and Crook.  Mr. Anderson also advised that he would turn the proposed amendment to bill draft to ascertain that it met the confines of the bill drafter’s intent.

 

Mr. Brett Jefferson, a licensed professional land surveyor in the state of Nevada and legislative cochairman for the Nevada Association of Land Surveyors, appeared before the committee in support of A.B. 126.  He also intended to provide background information on the proposed bill.

 

The purpose of the bill was to require authorship of meets-and-bounds style legal descriptions to be disclosed so that authorship could be recorded when real property was conveyed.  While authorship was not restricted, neither was the identification of an author required.  The justification for the bill was that meets-and-bounds legal descriptions were common when a description referenced bearings, distances, natural or artificial property markers, and/or adjoined property boundaries.  It was also common for a greater number of meets-and-bounds legal descriptions to contain errors.  The costs to correct a defective meets-and-bounds description, without author identification, could be inordinate and, consequently, increased the costs of land transfers.  Support for legislation that served to protect the public from higher costs and flawed land transfers was respectfully requested.

 

Vice Chair Manendo called for questions directed to Mr. Jefferson.  When none were had, Vice Chair Manendo called on Mr. David Crook.

 

David Crook, a licensed professional land surveyor and board member of the Association of Land Surveyors, wished to register his support, as well as that of the association, for A.B. 126.

 

Mr. Collins requested additional information and, further, asked if the proposed legislation would settle irrevocably the question of individual surveyor responsibility.

 

Mr. Jefferson explained that there existed two basic types of descriptions by which real property was conveyed.  One was termed a lot-and-block type description where a map, such as a subdivision or parcel map, was prepared that identified the land conveyed by parcel number as shown on that certain map.  He reiterated that meets-and-bounds descriptions encompassed a unique variety of elements which contained what were termed the “meets and bounds” of that property.  Those elements included the bearings, distances and various courses of the parameter of the conveyed parcel.  They were generally more complicated than a lot-and-block type description and required mathematical closure to ensure the property was properly described.

 

Mr. Collins then asked about statements such as “the northeast section” and Mr. Jefferson confirmed that lot-and-block descriptions had included that style of description.

 

Mr. Nolan asked whether, if the proposed bill were made into law, revision of existing documents used by title and mortgage companies would be required.

 

Mr. Jefferson assured Mr. Nolan and the committee that lot-and-block type descriptions, which were based upon subdivision maps, would not fall under the scope of the proposed legislation.  He stated that the proposed legislation was restricted to meets-and-bounds descriptions.

 

Mr. Jefferson then offered that he had not answered Mr. Collins’ second question as of that point, and Vice Chair Manendo then requested he do so.  Mr. Jefferson stated that, with regard to responsibility, the entire purpose of the proposed legislation was to ascertain those individuals who were responsible for

the preparation of meets-and-bounds legal descriptions with the specific intent that they be held more accountable for the documents they had prepared.

 

Mr. Claborn inquired whether the proposed legislation required practicing land surveyors to purchase new instruments or hardware.

 

Mr. Jefferson confirmed that land surveyor’s inventories were unaffected by the proposed legislation.  He reiterated that the proposed bill went to recordation of authorship only, and that would be via notation of an author’s name and address within the official record.

 

Ms. McClain voiced a certain level of concern over the continued use of an older, unevolved form of legal description.  She wished to know whether there were any options available to convert that style of description into a more modern technology-based format.

 

Mr. Jefferson responded to Ms. McClain that there were a tremendous number of legal descriptions prepared in the lot-and-block style; however, there were also many irregular-shaped parcels that required the meets-and-bounds form of description.  He stated the difficulty with chains of title was that once boundaries were determined via meets-and-bounds, the descriptions generally remained in the same style when reconveyed.  Unless a parcel or subdivision map existed that encompassed the meets-and-bounds description into a subdivision of some sort, those parcels would continue to be identified by their meets-and-bounds.

 

Ms. McClain expressed her belief that at some point legal descriptions of the meets-and-bounds type should be revised to take advantage of current technologies.

 

Acting Chair Manendo then acknowledged the presence of a number of visitors from Boy Scout Troop No. 850 of Elko, Nevada.  Mr. Manendo was informed the visit was to fulfill a required element for the scouts’ merit badges.  The troop leader took the opportunity to thank Mr. Steve Watson for an explanation of the legislative process.  Vice Chair Manendo voiced his appreciation for the chance to share one of the more positive roles of lawmakers, sharing knowledge with the public and, in particular, with children.

 

The Chair stated for the record that it was his intent that A.B. 126 be assigned to a work session where the amendment would be reviewed.

 

Upon request, Ms. Maureen Brower identified her position as neutral and observing before Vice Chair Manendo called Alan Glover, Carson City Recorder, to the witness table.  Mr. Glover addressed the committee as the representative of the County Fiscal Officers Association and, in particular, as a representative of the county recorders.  The county recorders had received a number of calls the preceding week with regard to A.B. 126, and agreed with the concept.  He believed Mr. Anderson had an amendment out of Clark County that would take care of the county recorders’ major concern.

 

Mr. Glover then addressed page 2, lines 1 and 2, of the bill and suggested that the language be returned to its original form.  He stated that one never wanted to use an assessor’s parcel number in lieu of a legal description.  It appeared to him that the addition of the new language was being restricted just to paragraph (c) of Subsection 1.  It was his opinion that that the new language did not necessarily add anything to the bill.  Moving to page 2, lines 4 through 8, Mr. Glover stated that the county recorders’ only real concern was that the proposed legislation applied solely to future documents.  He agreed that there were a vast number of meets-and-bounds deeds in circulation.  Some deeds, he advised, were of such an advanced age that one would never be able to ascertain the author, nor would that individual necessarily be available for contact.

 

Mr. Glover continued that, with the way that the bill was drafted, if real property was conveyed from an individual to a trust or, more frequently, from a business entity or corporation to its LLC, there was a question of whether the deed was even recordable.  That concern came when, if a deed was done years ago and the author was unknown, the county recorders might not be able to record the deed under the proposed language.  Mr. Glover then stated that Mr. Jefferson was absolutely correct.  It was of the utmost importance to know who to contact on a troubled meets-and-bounds description.  Mr. Glover allowed that even the state of Nevada had experienced complications with land descriptions based on poor writing and bad surveying.  Often odd-shaped land contributed to those problems.  Mr. Glover concurred with Mr. Anderson that, with the amendment, the situation would be corrected.  Were county recorders to be allowed to record old and new deeds correctly when they came in, then the county recorders would know the responsible party to contact, if need arose.

 

Chairman Anderson requested that Mr. Glover, at some point in the future, voice his suggestions to Mr. Anthony relative to the possibility of eliminating

Subsection 3, on page 2, of Section (c), lines 4 through 8, of the bill.  Chairman Anderson then reiterated Mr. Glover’s suggestion to dispose of that language and accept the amendment before ending with a final inquiry as to whether the amendment would take care of the entire concern.

 

Alan Glover then summarized his suggestion that, on page 2, lines 1 through 8, the language be returned to its original form and confirmed that revision would cover the problem at issue and any others that might arise.  With that language in place, to then amend the language of lines 4 through 8 as discussed in Mr. Anderson’s proposed amendment.

 

Vice Chair Manendo closed the hearing on A.B. 126 and assigned it back to committee before returning the meeting to Chairman Anderson.

 

Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:23 a.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Cheryl O'Day

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

 

 

DATE: