MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary

 

Seventy-First Session

February 23, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 9:06 a.m., on Friday, February 23, 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

Ms.                     Sharron Angle

Mr.                     Greg Brower

Ms.                     Barbara Buckley

Mr.                     John Carpenter

Mr.                     Jerry Claborn

Mr.                     Tom Collins

Mr.                     Don Gustavson

Mrs.                     Ellen Koivisto

Ms.                     Kathy McClain

Mr.                     Dennis Nolan

Mr.                     John Oceguera

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Ms.                     Genie Ohrenschall (Excused)

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst

Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel

Rebekah Langhoff, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Jack M. Holmes, P.L.S., County Surveyor, Washoe County Public Works Department, Engineering Division

Kathryn L. Burke, County Recorder, Washoe County Recorder

Alan H. Glover, Recorder, Carson City Recorder

Jud Klinger, Commercial Title Officer, First American Title Insurance

Pat Coward, Legislative Representative, Nevada Land Title Association

 

Roll was called and Chairman Anderson determined a quorum was present.  Chairman Anderson announced the committee was conducting a work session and testimony would not be heard unless the committee asked certain persons to speak for clarification purposes. 

 

Chairman Anderson informed the committee of a Bill Draft Request (BDR) regarding the procedures leading to civil commitment and other related statutes affecting the procedures in family courts.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO REQUEST A BDR REGARDING THE PROCEDURES LEADING TO CIVIL COMMITMENT AND OTHER RELATED STATUTES AFFECTING PROCEDURES OF THE FAMILY COURTS.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Nick Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, provided the committee with a work session document which served as a guideline for the discussion (Exhibit C).

 

Assembly Bill No. 38:  Authorizes notice of meetings of units’ owners and executive boards of associations of common-interest communities to be sent by electronic mail upon request. (BDR 10-279)

 

Mr. Anthony reminded the committee A.B. 38 was requested by Assemblyman Don Gustavson, and provided a brief synopsis on the discussion and testimony the committee heard on the bill (Exhibit C, pages 1-2).  The proposed amendment made use of e-mail notification voluntary (Exhibit C, pages 4-5).

 

Chairman Anderson was mindful of the concerns raised by Maryanne Ingemanson, who represented the Vivian Lane Homeowners Association, regarding the methodology used to determine the maximum number of units a common-interest community could have in order to be considered a small community, but advised of his intent to proceed with the bill and amendments as proposed.

 

Mr. Gustavson indicated he would like to see Mrs. Ingemanson’s concerns addressed through other legislation, but suggested that at this time A.B. 38 and the proposed amendment to make e-mail notification voluntary be passed.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 38.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 Assembly Bill No. 41:  Authorizes city attorneys to defend person in criminal proceeding under certain circumstances. (BDR 1-380)

 

Mr. Anthony reminded the committee A.B. 41 was cosponsored by Speaker Emeritus Joseph E. Dini, Jr., and Senator Mark Amodei on behalf of the Yerington City Attorney, and provided a brief synopsis on the discussion and testimony the committee heard on the bill (Exhibit C, page 2).  Amendments were proposed to change the word “jurisdiction” to the word “county” on line 17 and to delete the words “for compensation” at line 16.

 

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lang for her opinion on the proposed deletion of the words “for compensation.”  Ms. Lang indicated the words “for compensation” were inserted because Nevada Revised Statute 7.065 currently allowed city attorneys to represent indigent people without a charge, however, Mr. Zumpft, the Yerington city attorney, felt it would require attorneys to accept compensation.  In order to make the language clear, Ms. Lang recommended removing the words “for compensation” and adding the words “with or without compensation.”

 

Chairman Anderson questioned whether the word “jurisdiction” should be replaced with the word “county” at line 17.  He noted his belief that leaving the word “jurisdiction” would restrict attorneys less than replacing it with the word “county.”  Mr. Carpenter agreed with Chairman Anderson and felt that no change should be made at line 17. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 41.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mr. Brower felt the bill was appropriate and indicated his support.  Chairman Anderson indicated the amendment added the compensation language at line 16 but did not change the word “jurisdiction” to the word “county” at line 17.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 Assembly Bill No. 126:  Revises provision regarding recording of certain documents relating to real property. (BDR 10-842)

 

Mr. Anthony reminded the committee A.B. 126 was requested by Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, and provided a brief synopsis on the discussion and testimony the committee heard on the bill (Exhibit C, page 3).  The purpose of the bill was to require the authorship of legal descriptions to be disclosed when the descriptions were written in a metes and bounds format.  Amendments to A.B. 126 were proposed (Exhibit C, pages 8-9).

 

Chairman Anderson inquired whether Ms. Lang was aware of any other concerns that needed to be addressed.  Ms. Lang indicated she had contacted several people in order to ascertain the intent of the amendments to paragraph C and understood the intent was to make very clear that a notice of completion or affidavit of death did not require a legal description of the property.  It was Ms. Lang’s opinion that the bill already made that provision, but recommended amending the second sentence to provide that the county recorder may record a notice of completion or affidavit of death without a legal description of the real property.

 

Chairman Anderson requested Jack Holmes, Washoe County Surveyor and Kathryn Burke, to provide testimony only on the language of A.B. 126.

 

Jack M. Holmes, P.L.S., County Surveyor, Washoe County Public Works Department, Engineering Division, felt that the amendment language in Paragraph C was confusing. 

 

Ms. Buckley also felt paragraph C was confusing and asked if it was possible to combine the language from paragraphs 3 and 4 into paragraph C in order to make the language clear.  Ms. Lang responded she was concerned about leaving paragraph C with the words “where applicable” and advised the second part of the sentence, which was proposed to be stricken, was included in order to address that concern.

 

Mr. Holmes felt the words “where applicable” were vague and agreed with Ms. Buckley that paragraphs 3 and 4 could be combined into the language of paragraph C and added that such a change would more closely follow previous recommendations made by the county recorders.  Chairman Anderson noted he did not want to leave the county recorders in a position that would cause their jobs to become more difficult.

 

Kathryn L. Burke, Washoe County Recorder, indicated she could not determine the intent of paragraph C, suggesting the entire paragraph be deleted, and advised that county recorders had never been allowed to deny recordation of a document based on the fact that a document did not contain correct information.  Chairman Anderson was disappointed that Ms. Burke did not testify before the committee when it heard the bill.

 

Ms. Lang reiterated that the intent of paragraph C was to make it a requirement to include a legal description of real property without imposing the requirement on a notice of completion or an affidavit of death.

 

Alan H. Glover, Carson City Recorder, felt the bill worked and did not feel it would damage the bill to take out paragraph C, as long as proposed paragraphs 3 and 4 were left in the bill.  Chairman Anderson wondered if the problem was with the entire paragraph C or just with the words “where applicable.”  

 

Ms. Buckley clarified the purpose of the bill was to require whoever prepared the description to identify themselves when a document was recorded using metes and bounds, and not to require legal descriptions on every document.  Accordingly, Ms. Buckley felt that paragraph C was not necessary.

 

Mr. Carpenter acknowledged that some metes and bounds descriptions were so old that the author was no longer living and questioned what would happen under those circumstances.  Mr. Glover responded the bill would affect only metes and bounds descriptions prepared in the future and not those prepared in the past.  Mr. Holmes added that the bill would allow recorders to identify who prepared the description and if the description was taken from a previously recorded document where the author of the description was unknown, the previous recording information would be the information that must be disclosed.  Mr. Holmes stated the bill attempted to create a paper trail for legal descriptions which was not available in the past. 

 

Mr. Carpenter asked if the bill had been discussed with title companies and wondered what the effect of the bill would be on title companies.  Mr. Holmes indicated his belief the amendment would facilitate the research of the title companies and he had discussed the concept in the past with them, however, Mr. Holmes had not circulated the amendment among the title companies for comment.

 

Jud Klinger, Commercial Title Officer, First American Title Insurance, agreed that paragraph C should be stricken.  Mr. Klinger did not have concerns with the metes and bounds question but was concerned with attempting to identify past authors of metes and bounds descriptions.

 

Pat Coward, Legislative Representative, Nevada Land Title Association, advised the committee the Nevada Land Title Association agreed with the amendment and supported the deletion of paragraph C.

 

Ms. Buckley asked if it would help to include language to the effect that the “last known” name and mailing address should be included or the name and address should be included “if known.”  Mr. Holmes responded that newly created metes and bounds descriptions needed to identify the author in order to establish credibility.   Ms. Lang advised that Ms. Buckley’s concerns were dealt with in Subsection 4 which stated if a description had been previously recorded only the previous recording information was required to be included and not the name of the author of the previously recorded description.  Ms. Lang pointed out Subsection 3 applied to newly created metes and bounds descriptions and Subsection 4 applied to previously recorded metes and bounds descriptions. 

 

Ms. Buckley questioned which Subsection applied when the author of a newly created metes and bounds description was unknown.  Ms. Lang felt that if the document were newly created the author would be known.  Ms. Burke believed that if a document and legal description had previously been recorded, Subsection 4 allowed the recording of a new document using the same legal description by simply referring to the previously recorded document that contained the description.  Subsection 3 provided that new metes and bounds descriptions must identify the author of the new description. 

 

Mr. Carpenter felt that inclusion of the words “if known” would help to avoid the problems which would be encountered if an old metes and bounds description, the author of which was unknown, was being recorded for the first time. 

 

Ms. Buckley wondered if there were ever occasions when a document was being recorded with an old metes and bounds description which had never previously been recorded.  Chairman Anderson reminded the committee the vast majority of property transfers were not prepared with metes and bounds descriptions.  Mr. Carpenter felt many property descriptions were still prepared with metes and bounds descriptions and the situation could occur where an old metes and bounds description was being recorded for the first time. 

 

Ms. Lang stated that Subsection 4 applied to those situations where a metes and bounds description had been recorded in the past and a new deed with the old metes and bounds description was going to be recorded.  In such an event, identification of the author of the old metes and bounds description would not be required.  Subsection 3 applied to newly created metes and bounds descriptions that had never been recorded.

 

Mr. Holmes felt A.B. 126 was not meant to discriminate against anyone’s right to author metes and bounds descriptions, it was intended only to identify the author of metes and bounds descriptions.

 

Chairman Anderson indicated his intent to entertain a motion of amend and do pass on A.B. 126.  The amendment would remove paragraph C and retain Subsections 3 and 4. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 126.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

            THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.  MR. COLLINS WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

 

Chairman Anderson assured the committee he would review the final language of the amendment with the committee prior to taking it to the floor.

 

Mr. Anthony reviewed the committee’s schedule for the upcoming week.

 

Chairman Anderson brought the committee’s attention to the fact that the committee meeting on March 2, 2001 would be held in room 4100 in order to conduct a joint meeting with Senate Judiciary, and Mr. Nolan’s bill, A.B. 174, regarding a program for visitation to the county coroner’s office, would be heard on February 27, 2001.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:08 a.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

Rebekah Langhoff

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

 

 

DATE: