MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-Second Session
February 28, 2003
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:11 a.m., on Friday, February 28, 2003. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and, via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, 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.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Mr. John Oceguera, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. David Brown
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn
Mr. Marcus Conklin
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. William Horne
Mr. Garn Mabey
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Mr. Rod Sherer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall (excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Carrie Lee, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Barbara K. Finley, Justice of the Peace, Reno Justice Court
Daniel P. Ward, Judge, New River Township Justice Court
James M. Bixler, Judge, Justice Court, Las Vegas Township
Marguerite Creel, Court Administrator, Las Vegas Justice Court
Charles Kilpatrick, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Dan Musgrove, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, representing Clark County
Diana Alba, County Fiscal Officers Association, Clark County Clerk’s Office
Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder
George Flint, representing the Chapel of the Bells Wedding Chapel and Heart of Reno Wedding Chapel
Todd Torvinen, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Chairman Anderson:
Good Morning. The Assembly Committee on Judiciary will please come to order. [Chairman Anderson acknowledged Judge Bunch viewing via the Internet. He reminded the Committee and those present in the audience about the Committee’s standing rules. Roll called.]
I see we have some folks in the sunny southland who are interested in this morning. Let’s try to get the judges back to court, and I presume the clerks also need to go back on their way, too, but we’ll start with A.B. 100. The first item on the agenda will be A.B. 100.
Assembly Bill 100: Increases monetary limit of jurisdiction of justices’ courts. (BDR 1-855)
Who is the primary sponsor? We have two judges. Judge Finley, it’s a pleasure to have you here this morning and Judge Ward, how are you this morning? Mr. Brown, this is your bill.
Assemblyman David Brown, District No. 22, Clark County:
Good morning again, Chairman Anderson and honorable members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee. [Introduced himself.] I appreciate the opportunity to sit before you today as the bill sponsor for A.B. 100. For the record, my name is David Brown, Assembly District 22, Henderson [Nevada]. A.B. 100 is, at least in content, a simple bill; it raises the jurisdictional limit for justice courts from $7,500 to $10,000. The primary reason for doing this is to permit greater access to justice and speedier resolutions for smaller matters that otherwise can get bogged down in district court. I’d like for just a moment, at least for some of our new members, to describe what the experience in Clark County is for smaller claims that would fit within the $7,500 to $10,000, which must be filed presently in district court, the state court that has broad jurisdiction, handles felony criminal matters and more significant civil disputes, again, in dollar amounts in excess of $7500. At least in Clark County, when you file such a claim, you pay $133 to file your complaint. From there, because it is an amount less than $40,000, you’re required to go to mandatory arbitration. It may take a month or two to get an arbitrator appointed. The arbitrator is an experienced, trained attorney, and fees must be paid to the arbitrator from the parties. So folks with small claims end up having to write checks out of their own pocket to pay for an arbitrator before they even have it heard. The case goes forward. The rules require that within six months of the appointment of the arbitrator that arbitration should proceed. There are instances where that doesn’t happen; there can be continuances of three months, two times, so it may go for a year. Certainly most of them, I think, take place within the six-month period. If either party does not like the result of the arbitration they are able then, just by mere request and motion, to have the case put right back into state district court where it gets in line.
There is a simple discovery proceeding; let me just explain what discovery is if you’re unfamiliar with discovery. Discovery allows parties to issue written interrogatories, detailed questions you can submit to the other party and they’re required to answer. That’s in regards to facts that they may allege or deny in their pleadings. There are also requests to admit or deny certain facts; those are written in nature. There are also written requests for production of documents, and that’s a request for them to turn over certain documents to you. You may also engage in depositions, which is to sit down with a court reporter and have counsel basically examine and cross-examine a witness so you know what they’re going to testify to in court. This is a very expensive part of court proceeding. In the mandated arbitration, there is discovery. It is usually scaled down, usually limited to ten interrogatories, ten requests to admit, and ten requests for production of documents, so it is not as wide open as it is in state court. Also, depositions may be limited to a couple per party, but nonetheless, that is a cost to the case. In the day that we live in, $7,500 just isn’t a whole lot of money, especially in terms of litigation. You can go through that in a state court proceeding where there is discovery very rapidly.
Chairman Anderson:
Are you talking about A.B. 100, the bill that’s going to raise the limit here, or are you talking about the amendment that you’re proposing?
Assemblyman Brown:
I’m talking about A.B. 100 that would raise the limit. I’m trying to put it in the context that I view it, which is that the cost of litigation is very considerable, and it is more so in state district court because of the discovery proceedings that you have. Also, at least in Clark County, if you’re in district court, you’re probably looking at a trial at the earliest in two years; three is really about the average that I’ve experienced, and certainly cases go four and five years. I would imagine that smaller cases can get worked in more quickly, but I still think two years is probably a conservative limit. In instances where you have small claims in this range, that doesn’t help anybody out, in my opinion.
I can tell you that it is the practice of many attorneys when a claimant comes in with a claim of $8,500, to sit down, explain the process they’ll need to go through in state district court, and then offer the alternative that if they took $1,000 off the claim they could go to justice court. We can probably be in and out of there in three to six months. There is no discovery, unless you request it of the judge, and the costs are minimal. Oftentimes, it is showing up at the trial and presenting your case. People really just want a day in court to make their arguments. They often want it decided by a judge; they feel comfortable. I think it’s unfortunate that someone would give up a portion of their claim just for expediency and speedy justice, but that is not an uncommon practice.
I’d like to present just a couple of statistics for you. The jurisdictional limit was last raised in 1993, from $5,000 to $7,500, which in 1993 dollars is now worth $5,870. So the equivalent now is less than a $6,000 claim, in terms of the 1993 dollars. It takes $9,600 of 2003 dollars to equal $7,500 as measured in 1993. So in terms of inflation alone, a $10,000 claim would be roughly equivalent to a $7,500 claim in 1993. So, in my opinion, the raise to $10,000 is justified, if by nothing else, by inflation alone.
I am not unsympathetic toward caseload issues, but I do not believe this is a caseload issue. I’m sure that may be at the offense of several judges. I know in particular, Clark County, City of Las Vegas, they have a very heavy burden. However, I contacted the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County and asked them to randomly survey cases. They polled cases and the results showed that 2 percent of the cases filed fell into the $7,500 to $10,000 range. In 1992, there were 14,500, or roughly, types of cases that would fall within that group of cases; that [2 percent] equals approximately 290 cases. In Clark County, if we go straight per average, and that may be debated, that there are 19 justices of the peace; that would result in an average of 15 new cases per year, 1.25 new cases per month. I just do not see this as a caseload issue.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
I just wanted to commend Mr. Brown for that explanation because for us freshmen in this Committee, that is a lot of really good information. Thank you, sir.
Assemblyman Brown:
Certainly.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Mr. Brown, in the rural areas, would they have to set up a special mediation panel, or are they already set up so that it wouldn’t be a big deal to get the mediators? It says that they may offer the proceedings in order that the extra proceedings be submitted to mediation…
Chairman Anderson:
Mr. Carpenter, are you talking about the amendment or the bill?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
No, I’m talking about the amendment.
Chairman Anderson:
We’re not on the amendment yet.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Oh. OK.
Chairman Anderson:
As I see the bill, it really is about raising the limit, so I’m kind of curious about this other proposed amendment. I realize the door is open. Have you had an opportunity to see the amendment that has been proposed?
Assemblyman Brown:
Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have; I received that yesterday. I appreciated that they brought that to me. I’m happy to give my initial response to that if you wish.
Chairman Anderson:
I’m not happy about seeing something like this when it is kind of dramatically different than the nature of the bill itself is because the public is not informed of the nature of what we might be doing here. So if we’re going to move on the amendment itself, we’re going to have some problems, I think. Judge Finley?
Barbara Finley, Justice of the Peace, Reno Justice Court:
Thank you, Chairman Anderson. [Introduced herself.] We have a proposed amendment to A.B. 100, and just to briefly explain how it amends the proposed bill is that, because of the impact, we don’t know what the impact will be on the justice courts. And with the budget constraints we have now, this bill is proposed as an interim way of looking at it and tracking cases and it’s proposed for a two-year period, which would require cases filed that are in the new limits, if A.B. 100 limits are passed, between $7,500 and $10,000, that those cases would be required to go to mediation first before being put in the court system. They would be in the court system, but they would be diverted to mediation. There are neighborhood justice centers already set up in both Clark County and Washoe County that were established pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes [NRS] 244.1607, so there shouldn’t be any additional cost involved to the participants and the parties to the litigation.
Having it go to mediation first allows a couple of things. It gives us a little breathing room in the justice courts to see how this new caseload is going to impact the courts, and also allows us to track the number of cases during that two-year period. There could be, and it is provided in the amendment, there would be a sunset provision that, unless voted on and renewed, would automatically expire on October 1, 2005. We have passed around the proposed amendment (Exhibit C); everyone should have a copy of it now. As far as the explanation and justification for the proposed amendments, because we don’t really know the number of cases, there has been an enormous increase over the past 8-9 years in justice court caseload. And I don’t have statistics on that with me for Washoe County; I know Clark County has prepared something. I think it goes something like an average of 24 percent a year increase in the number of cases filed. So we don’t know what this amendment will do to that increase in caseload, but we’re looking at a potential 7 percent reduction in the budget for this fiscal year, so one of our problems with just having this abrupt change is we don’t know what the impact will be on our ability to process the cases.
Chairman Anderson:
If I’m then to understand, it’s the justice court’s intention that if we were to raise the limit, the only way the larger counties would be able to do that is if we gave you the opportunity to move these into mediation centers, thus reducing your limit, and since I happened to be the author of the bill that put mediation centers in place, the question, I guess, if this was a concern in terms of establishing this for justice courts, that you didn’t raise it as an initial bill for the courts as a whole. The justice centers I thought were functioning pretty well. This looks like something of a departure or expansion there.
Judge Finley:
My understanding is, and I can’t tell you why we didn’t propose this initially, other than I don’t think there was a lot of thought in the justice courts that raising the limit would be a good thing. At this point, just because of the impact on the justice courts in the state, and the rural areas, too, we have some concerns with that. In most respects, we’re certainly not opposed to the bill. We understand the reasoning for it and are very inclined to support that if we have some provision to reduce the immediate impact on the justice courts, and that’s what this proposed amendment seeks to do. Our understanding, as far as the neighborhood mediation centers, is that they’re somewhat underutilized. I know they’re very active in coming to our small claims proceedings and trying to get closure, because both parties to a case have to be willing to submit to mediation, and obviously if the mediation doesn’t work, it goes right back to the court, just as it does in small claims right now.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
I know the justice courts have been very concerned about increasing this limit in the past and I know particularly in Las Vegas they have been, because their judge to caseload ratio is so high. I think it’s for every 100,000 cases they get a J.P., but in reality, because the county’s been unable to pay the bailiff, the clerk, the secretary, the support staff, it’s actually been much higher. I think that’s some of the reason this has failed before. I know they’ve sent me some concerns, which I’m sharing with Mr. Brown as we look at this. I have one question about the amendment. I think I understand what you’re trying to do and that is, if you get the increased jurisdiction, you want to have some alternative dispute mechanism available for that.
Judge Finley:
That’s correct.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
I guess my question is, you do that now, I believe, without statutory authorization, is that right? I know in Las Vegas small claims court, they call the calendar and then they say we have people here from the neighborhood justice center. It’s not binding; if you can’t work it out, you can come right back in and have your case heard, but you might resolve it quicker. You might be thirty-ninth on the agenda, so they give you a little pep talk to get you to try it. A lot of the cases are resolved, which is a good thing. So I believe that’s done now, so what’s not to prevent that from continuing to do that with this jurisdiction if we consider this bill?
Judge Finley:
The difference is that the mediation by the neighborhood justice centers in small claims court is totally voluntary. There’s nothing that requires the litigants to attempt mediation first. I don’t think that we could mandate that the parties go to mediation without statutory authority.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
And so this is what you feel you would need to be the mandatory ability?
Judge Finley:
Yes.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
OK, I understand. Thank you.
Chairman Anderson:
That being the case, Judge Finley, in looking at this amendment or the proposed amendment, in subsection 1 of Section 1, where the factor would exceed proceedings exceeding $7,500, so the only group that you would end up with the mandated group would be those between $7,500 and the new threshold.
Judge Finley:
Yes.
Chairman Anderson:
What about those lesser ones; do you not want to mandate those also to the justice centers?
Judge Finley:
This is being proposed really as an interim to allow us both to have a little breathing space, and also to track the cases and see how they’re operating under that system. I think it would be based on an analysis of that operation as to whether it would be something that would be appropriate to apply to the lesser-valued cases in the court also. Or it might be something that isn’t even really necessary, once we sit down and look at how it’s preceded it during the two-year period. So I think as an interim step, this allows us to track those cases that would be added to the jurisdiction of the court and also allows us to see how that mandatory mediation would affect the caseload.
Assemblywoman Angle:
My question has to do with that lower threshold. I go to small claims court once in awhile to collect things, and it seems to me that the mediation would be better at the lower levels rather than at this increased level, and I guess that’s where my question is. If we were going to mandate something, wouldn’t we want the mediation mandated at the lower level? My second observation is that sometimes I have a case that goes over that $7,500 and I don’t want to take it to district court because it’s a matter of collecting rent and things like that. I want to just have it settled, so I’m wondering about this idea that only 2 percent of these cases really fall in that category, and I’m wondering what your percentage would be in Washoe County, since this 2 percent is in Clark County. Is that about the same in Washoe County?
Judge Finley:
Well, I don’t really know. I think one of the other unknowns is with the change in the jurisdictional limit, that percentage in that category might change, because there are some advantages, in certain cases, to filing in justice court. And as Assemblyman Brown pointed out, in some cases they will lower a claim to bring it in justice court rather than district court because of those advantages of swifter reaction to it, and also, some of the other cost factors that apply in justice court that don’t apply in district court.
But I think the main thing on this is looking at the increase in jurisdictional limit; we don’t know how much of an effect that will be. We can estimate to some degree, based on the figures they have in Clark County, and they’re probably similar in Washoe County. But until we actually start doing it, we can’t really know that, and I think this amendment would allow us to really see what the difference is, and to see how the mandatory mediation would work at the same time. As I said, because we’re proposing this as an amendment to A.B. 100, we’re not proposing it on an overall basis at this time. But I think after taking a look and being able to look after the two-year period, then we could see if that would be something that would be desirable.
Chairman Anderson:
Without the amendment, Judge Finley, do you believe that the justice courts would be well served to move there, if I’m to understand this: without this amendment, you believe that the justice courts in Washoe County, or in Reno, where you are, will be so overworked that you won’t be able to manage the situation and that it will even be a longer time delay?
Judge Finley:
That’s quite possible. Yes, and the other added point of just adding the increased jurisdictional amounts, as far as the mediation, is that I don’t think it will increase their workload enough where there would be any added cost, because they’re already funded.
Chairman Anderson:
I’m talking about J.P. courts, in terms of the justice centers, I think that’s a different question.
Judge Finley:
Right. With the amendment, I think it could be a big impact.
Chairman Anderson:
Without the amendment.
Judge Finley:
Without this amendment, just the bill itself could impact us so that we are going to have a much slower ability to process the caseload because we are under the budget constraints that everybody’s under right now.
Chairman Anderson:
Very good. Judge Ward, I see Judge Bixler in Clark County sitting there. Would you like me to go to him, or to you?
Daniel P. Ward, Judge, New River Township Justice Court:
Thank you, Chairman Anderson. I think I would like to go prior to Judge Bixler. [Introduced himself.] I am the President of Nevada Judges Association, and I am a justice of the peace. There were a number of concerns that have been raised by the rurals that haven’t been addressed in this amendment. We don’t know what the impact would be on the rurals. In my jurisdiction, it would be a staff increase, as far as the caseload. Most of it would be paid for in my jurisdiction. The urban areas have the potential of having the civil jury trials, the small juries; that’s their main concern. It’s all fiscal impact. We had agreed that there’s a hole there, a no-man’s land; it needs to be filled, and we’re just looking for a way to do it. Thank you.
Chairman Anderson:
So you’re concerned about, even with the amendment, the justice courts in the rural areas of the state, other than the two large urban areas.
Judge Ward:
The fiscal impact on the rurals. I had a 10 percent cut in my budget last year. I wasn’t able to recoup it this year; added staff is more money. I don’t know where it would be coming from.
Chairman Anderson:
Questions for Judge Ward? Mr. Carpenter.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. I guess we are discussing the amendment now?
Chairman Anderson:
We are now. Now it’s been introduced.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Anderson:
In fact, it seems to have become the bill.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Yeah, right. Simple little bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What is the situation of mediation in the rurals? Do they do much of that in justice court, do you know, or do you do it in your court?
Judge Ward:
We don’t have mediation in the rurals. It’s one of those cost issues.
Chairman Anderson:
I might indicate, I think, that we put a population threshold for the mediation centers when we put them in. We started out in Clark County, and then we expanded it to Washoe County with a piece of legislation from me, I think. Any additional information that you feel we need to have, Judge Ward?
Judge Ward:
No sir, thank you.
James M. Bixler, Judge, Justice Court, Las Vegas Township:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. [Introduced himself and provided (Exhibit D).] I’m in Department Four. I’ve been on the bench for 23 years, and first of all, I’d like to preface my whole statement by making sure that it’s understood we don’t oppose this bill; we’re neutral on this bill, but we want to make sure that the Committee is aware of some information that may not have been presented or that you may not be aware of.
Since the last increase of jurisdictional limit, this is not small claims; this is justice court civil, a separate section from the small claims. In 1993, when the limit went from $5,000 to $7,500, what we experienced in Las Vegas Township was an increase of 600 percent in the justice court civil filings. That’s from 1993 to 2002. It went from 3,100 cases in 1992, 23,000 cases last year. The population doubled, but that certainly doesn’t account for a 600 percent increase in the number of filings in this category. We are already the busiest court in the state. Last year’s Nevada Judiciary Report shows that we currently have over 100,000 cases filed in the Las Vegas justice court, criminal and civil, which averages about 12,000-plus cases per judge, as opposed to the state average of about 2,600. In addition to those cases we process over 230,000 traffic citations. We also provide the detention center with 24-hour, 7-day-a-week pre-trial service.
We barely are able to keep up with the caseload that we have. We estimate that, and I think this is probably a conservative estimate, that in our township, between 2003 and 2007, we will probably experience an increase of approximately 30,000 cases in this category. We estimate that the impact of this will be, if you add a judge to handle it, and add the staff that’s necessary, slightly under $2 million to Clark County. We estimate 8 additional employees just for the records section, the detention, the filing, and the finance areas, to the additional jury services that we will have to implement. These are the high end of the civil cases. These are the cases for which you actually experience jury trials, which we are experiencing.
We are presently operating under a population cap of 100,000 people. That has been for some years; we would be authorized for 11 judges, but we’ve been able to keep the number of judges down. We just recently went from 6 to 8 judges. The cost of each department is an estimate, but probably runs between $750,000 to $1 million for an additional department when the facilities are added in. Since the last population trigger increase has occurred, the following legislative actions have taken place:
We just want the Committee to be aware of this impact and these factors. If A.B. 100 is passed, and I’m not familiar with the amendment, I haven’t seen it, but just with the content of A.B. 100, the impact of this bill, we would like the Committee to consider some of the following means that would help us address the financial and the operational burden that will occur as a result of this. We would like:
If I could paint a picture of what it looks like in the clerk’s office in justice court, our files are in boxes that are stacked to the ceilings; you can’t even walk through the aisles. We have no place to go; we have no place to put anything or anybody. I don’t even know what our mediation program is like because we don’t have any place for our mediation program.
Some of the judges have suggested lowering the population trigger but I’m personally not in favor of that. I think that we’re already adequate; that is the opinion of some of the judges. Right now, justice court Las Vegas Township already has the room to ask for more judges if it becomes necessary. Along with the concept of mediation, we would like to see a mandatory arbitration provision addressed, rather than just a voluntary mediation. That would have a far greater impact in handling this increase that we’re about to experience. That’s about all I’ve got to say. That was a mouthful.
Chairman Anderson:
It was indeed, Judge. You know, I hate to disclose this, but I will nonetheless. As a freshman legislator, I’m the guy who came up with the population figure numbers in order to solve the justice court problems of the community in which I live. And in the following session, the judges from Clark County came in and amended the bill to allow themselves the opportunity to get out if they didn’t want to expand the number of judges, and I kind of disagreed because I liked it tied solidly to the number, thus taking it out of the decision of the pressure that might come from county commissions to keep their budgets, and rather to try to keep the number of judges on line, but I understand your predicament. I understand the county’s predicament in trying to support a judge and the chambers that would be necessary in Clark County and in Washoe County, for that matter, where they’ve been struggling for a long time to try to come up with sufficient facilities to meet the needs. Even in my community, even after 12 years now, they still haven’t entirely resolved the problem of the justice court, in terms of space.
Judge Bixler:
It is a battle.
Chairman Anderson:
So I agree. I hope we don’t mess with the population figures, but that’s a personal aside.
Judge Bixler:
I personally think that it’s necessary. I think that that’s fine. I think that we’ve bent over backwards trying to help the county. We would rather take whatever money is available and staff the clerk’s office and add new positions; every place is severely understaffed, in every division of every section that we have. Dr. Marguerite Creel is our court administrator; she’s also right here, and she’s certainly every bit, or more, qualified to discuss any questions or impact that we feel we’re going to experience. She’s right here if you have any questions for her also.
Chairman Anderson:
Any questions from the Committee? Dr. Creel, did you have some specific thing you needed to get on the record?
Marguerite Creel, Court Administrator, Las Vegas Justice Court:
No, sir. I think Judge Bixler did a fine job and if you need any additional statistics as you’re debating this bill, I’d be happy to provide it to you.
Chairman Anderson:
We’ll make the testimony from Judge Bixler part of the record for the day, along with proposed amendments. Thank you very much. Mr. Brown, want to come back and rejoin the Committee?
Assemblyman Brown:
Could I be given a moment to respond to a couple of those issues?
Chairman Anderson:
One moment only so that we can get to the other bills here.
Assemblyman Brown:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of responses. First of all, I believe that the justice courts are already carrying some of this burden, and that at least as far as my clients are concerned, those with $8,500 claims are in justice court presently. Second thing, jury issue. I have spoken to justices of the peace and discussed civil juries and I think that some have had maybe one a year; that might be an interesting statistic to learn. Attorneys on contract-type cases, which will be, for the most part, those that would be included in this number, are not interested in arguing those types of not-very-interesting matters before a jury; they just want to get it in front of a judge. The client just wants their day in court. As far as a 7 percent reduction, county budgets, it should be noted that other than the district court judge salaries, the district court operations are paid by the counties. Now, I think if you can run 6-10 cases through justice court during the time period that you can run one through district court, it probably makes sense to put resources into the justice courts to capitalize on that.
Chairman Anderson:
Mr. Brown, I don’t think you need to go through and detail every one of these for the Committee. It’s not a rebuttal opportunity, really. If we’re going to take up the amendment, you’ll have an opportunity at a work session, if we choose to do that. I don’t want to cut you off, but I do want to get on to the other couple of people here.
Assemblyman Brown:
That’s fine, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Chairman Anderson:
An hour is a little while. Mr. Kilpatrick.
Charles Kilpatrick, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association:
[Introduced himself.] We generally support this A.B. 100. It’s an opportunity for litigants to gain access to the courts; the winners are the people with claims. Not the attorneys, not the court system, but the people that have claims that are in such an amount that their cost prohibit access to the courts. The amendment—
we haven’t had an opportunity to review it with any specificity, but the remarks of the justices of the peace, the judges, are very persuasive, and it may be that when it’s considered, that needs to be included in the bill. Thank you.
Chairman Anderson:
I appreciate the question. I think it is twofold. That is, you think your clients are going to be well served if they have to wait dramatically longer for a turn in court, unless we adopt the amendment? If we move forward, so the courts become overcrowded, how does that serve your client?
Charles Kilpatrick:
I’m persuaded by the remarks from Assemblyman Brown that this, most of the cases that are under the, in the present situation, we have cases being squeezed down by litigants, abandoning portions of their claims, so that I was persuaded that there would not be a significant increase. And I think that the local J.P.s from Fallon [Nevada] and Judge Finley didn’t see any big, enormous avalanche of cases coming in; they wanted to have a little bit of a two-year window. I’m persuaded with the statistics that were brought forth by Assemblyman Brown.
Chairman Anderson:
Are there any questions for Mr. Kilpatrick? I see none. Thank you very much.
Charles Kilpatrick:
Thank you.
Chairman Anderson:
Mr. Musgrove? [Indicated he did not wish to speak.] Anybody else wish to be heard on Assembly Bill 100? The Chair will bring it back to Committee. I’m a little troubled with the amendment because I want to truly see how it shifts out, so I’m going to hold this one for a little while until I see what the impact is going to be along the line. Let me open the hearing on A.B. 94.
Assembly Bill 94: Revises provisions governing hours of operation for office of commissioner of civil marriages in certain larger counties. (BDR 11-292)
Dan Musgrove, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, representing Clark County:
Mr. Chairman, [introduced himself]. In Las Vegas, I have Diana Alba and I would ask that she be allowed to present the bill, as it is a bill that affects only Clark County.
Chairman Anderson:
We’ll start then with Ms. Alba in Clark County. And you are the assistant county clerk for Clark County? Ms. Alba, good morning. Thank you for waiting around.
Diana Alba, Clark County Clerk’s Office:
Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the Judiciary Committee. [Introduced herself.] I am the assistant county clerk in Clark County. The County Fiscal Officer’s Association submitted A.B. 94 at the request of the Clark County Clerk’s Office. Currently, Clark County is the only county that’s mandated by statute to keep the office of the Civil Marriage Commissioner open the same hours as the Marriage License Office. After studying this issue in our county, we determined that it may not be cost-effective for us to keep the Office of the Civil Marriage Commission open during overnight hours on weekends and holidays, due to the small number of ceremonies that are performed. Frequently, in an 8-hour period, it might be only four or five ceremonies. We also have concerns for the safety of our staff. NRS 122.177 requires that the Civil Marriage Commission cannot be located in the same building at the Marriage License Office, making it necessary for us to have staff at a separate location that, just by being separate, is more isolated and less secure, especially during overnight weekend hours. A.B. 94 simply grants Clark County the flexibility that every other county in Nevada enjoys, which is to set the operation hours for the Office of the Civil Marriage Commission, independent of the license office.
Chairman Anderson:
Well played. Questions for Ms. Alba from the members of the Committee? Mr. Glover?
Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder, representing the Fiscal Officers Association:
[Introduced himself.] I’m simply here to support Clark County on this issue. They had brought it to our association last spring at our meeting and all the clerks in the state do support them in this. It gives them the flexibility to do what they need to down there.
Chairman Anderson:
Mr. Musgrove.
Dan Musgrove:
Nothing to add, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman Anderson:
Mr. Flint?
George Flint, representing Bells of Reno Wedding Chapel and Heart of Reno Wedding Chapel:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, good morning. [Introduced himself.] Inasmuch as the Office of Marriage Commissioner was brainstormed, I came up with [the idea] 33 years ago; I thought it might be wise for me to be here today. Ms. Alba alluded to the fact that every other county has the right to do this. For clarification, this office only exists in two counties. This office was created with the blessing of this body in 1969 as an alternative for tourists coming to Nevada. They wanted a wedding of a strictly civil nature that did not want to necessarily go to a wedding chapel. Your body, in 1969, in its wisdom, decided that the justices of the peace in Washoe and Clark County were so darned busy doing weddings that the problem that has been alluded to in the previous bill was becoming a big problem. Also, way back in the fifties and sixties, the best-paying job in the state was justice of the peace in Las Vegas, Nevada. So the wisdom of this Legislature was to remove the justice of the peace from the wedding business and we thought the tourists needed an alternative, so we came up with the concept of the Office of Commissioner of Civil Marriage. And if you will look at the statute, you will see that since this office was created in 1969, the law’s only been fine-tuned one or two times.
Ten years ago when the ranking member, Mr. Carpenter, and you, Mr. Chairman, were sitting on this Committee, you did tweak the law enough to allow Washoe County to do what Clark County is asking to have done now, and private enterprise has no problem with that whatsoever. I have to say candidly that these two lines and two words are so innocuous that it’d be pretty impossible for anybody to oppose it. However, I will tell you that private enterprise watches these things with a keen eye because Chapter 122 [of the Nevada Revised Statutes] is the Torah and Holy Scripture of the wedding industry in this state. Mr. Chairman, you said some things earlier today about the appropriateness of certain amendments and certain bills. Please pass this, process this if you do just like it is, don’t allow it to become a vehicle to dramatically change something. I suggested to my colleague on my left here, that maybe we should bring forth an amendment this morning to allow wedding licenses to be sold in chapels. And I would have only done that tongue-in-cheek because…[laughter]…that’s my point…Please pass the bill.
Chairman Anderson:
Always good seeing you, Mr. Flint. [More laughter.]
George Flint:
And by the way, that won’t come before you again for a while. Every day in Las Vegas, 400 couples are married, and every week in northern Nevada, 400 couples are married; they represent 15 percent of our entire tourist economy. Two weeks ago in northern Nevada, 10,000 people visited a depressed town of Reno, either to attend a wedding or to be married. That is still a very major part of our tourist economy and we’ve spent 40 years creating and working with you and fine-tuning these laws and they are working well and we would like to keep them at that level. This bill is a good bill and we hope in these very simple words that you will pass it. Thank you.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
When I think of all the Hollywood movies where the hero and the heroine say, “Let’s go to Las Vegas and get married!” Twenty‑four hours, does that mean civil marriages will not be able to be held in Las Vegas, 24 hours a day anymore?
Diane Alba:
I can address that. Currently, marriage licenses are available 8 a.m. until midnight, Monday through Thursday, and you can purchase a license 24 hours a day on weekends and any legal holiday. This statute, as it reads now, mandates that we also keep the Marriage Commission Office open those same hours. We do perform a very small number of civil ceremonies in the overnight hours on the weekends. We don’t perform any civil ceremonies in the overnight hours during the week. Wedding chapels, however, do provide that service, so you can get married in Clark County, I guess, 24 hours if you get your license between 8 a.m. and midnight on weekdays, or on the 48 hours that’s available on weekends.
Chairman Anderson:
So you don’t perceive that this bill is going to change the drive-through wedding chapel?
Diane Alba:
No. In fact, it will actually, if we were to reduce the hours of our Marriage Commission Office on weekends and holidays, or at least have hours set by appointment for couples who do specifically want to come and be married at a certain time, we will have somebody available to do that, but it actually will take us out of competition with the wedding chapels to a degree that individuals during those overnight hours, as they do now, can go to a wedding chapel and be married, often at a lower fee than what we are mandated by statute to charge.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
But they won’t be able to get a license to be married?
Diane Alba:
This bill does not change the hours of the license office.
Chairman Anderson:
No, this is the marriage commissioner, civil marriage commissioner, not the licensing.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
OK, I heard that you can only get a license up until midnight?
Diane Alba:
Currently, the marriage license office hours are set by different section of this statute. It’s NRS 122.061. Currently in Clark County, an individual can obtain a marriage license from 8 a.m. to midnight, Monday through Thursday, and 24 hours a day, from Friday morning until Sunday midnight, or 24 hours on any holiday. That’s what it currently is.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
Thank you for that enlightenment. I appreciate that.
Chairman Anderson:
Questions? Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you for coming back. Anybody else wishing to testify on Assembly Bill 94? Chair closes the hearing on Assembly Bill 94 and will entertain a motion, unless anybody has a concern.
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 94.
ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Ohrenschall was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Anderson:
[Chairman Anderson assigned the Floor statement to Assemblyman Mabey.] That leaves us with the last bill of the day, which is A.B. 101. I open the hearing on A.B. 101.
Assembly Bill 101: Provides that divorce or annulment of marriage of settlor revokes certain provisions of revocable inter vivos trust related to former spouse under certain circumstances. (BDR 13-371)
Todd Torvinen, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee. [Introduced himself.] I’m speaking in support of A.B. 101. A.B. 101 is just essentially a housekeeping matter, cleaning up an area that perhaps should have been done years ago, but just wasn’t. I’m passing out there [(Exhibit E)], which statute is NRS 133.110. NRS 133.110 simply says that when a person gets divorced their ex-spouse is not entitled to inherit under the terms of a will or serve as a personal representative or executor. It revokes those designations in a will, by law.
Oftentimes, people, and I do some estate planning, don’t want to think about death and so, especially after a divorce, they don’t think about these issues, and that’s why NRS 133.110 exists. In today’s world, the estate-planning vehicle that many people choose to use is the revocable living trust instead of a will. The reason they choose a revocable living trust is because that avoids probate and saves some legal costs. This bill simply applies the same provisions that apply to wills to revocable living trusts. So on divorce, a revocable living trust that has beneficiary designations to a former spouse are revoked, and a former spouse cannot serve as a trustee of the revocable living trust. I would just submit [this bill] makes a lot of sense. I’ve discussed the bill with one of our leading estate planners in Reno, Mark Noble, and his comments were it makes a lot of sense and it should have been done years ago. I’ve also discussed this with the probate commissioner in Washoe County, Pam Gulliher, and she also agrees that it makes sense. So I would urge that you pass this. Thank you very much.
Chairman Anderson:
Of course, this piece of legislation is modeled after the similar provisions that are in the context of wills, that would be found in [NRS] 131.115.
Todd Torvinen:
Correct.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Are there any winners or losers in this deal?
Todd Torvinen:
I don’t know quite how to answer that. I can’t say there’s any winner or loser; all the bill does is simply state that if somebody forgets to change their living trust after divorce that their former spouse isn’t going to inherit. And that spouse shouldn’t be inheriting anyway because they’re not part of the marital estate any more.
Chairman Anderson:
Has there been a dramatic change in the way estates are done now because of the living trust versus the older way of doing them by wills? Because of the higher use of living trusts, we’ve already covered this in wills, but we hadn’t covered it in trusts and, therefore, it’s just a change that came about as a result of practice within the last 10, 20, or 40 years.
Todd Torvinen:
Exactly. Probably in the last 20 years the use of revocable living trusts has replaced, perhaps, and I’m just guessing, 50 percent of the situations where a person would employ a will. So it’s just using those same principles that are in the will statute revoking spouse designations to a living trust.
Chairman Anderson:
Mr. Carpenter.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I just want to protect my daughters.
Chairman Anderson:
I do, too. Mr. Mortenson.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If a person has a family trust and divorces his wife, who was the administrator of that trust, who now becomes the administrator? Will it be, maybe, a son or daughter, or will the court appoint a lawyer to be the trustee?
Todd Torvinen:
Every revocable living trust I’ve ever seen has a successor trustee named. Oftentimes a successor trustee is a child or another family member, and so that person would step up into the role the spouse formerly held and serve as trustee.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
I just wanted to be sure that a lawyer wasn’t put in place of the wife.
Todd Torvinen:
No, no lawyers.
Chairman Anderson:
Mr. Mortenson is a reader of Shakespeare, I’m sure. Other questions from members of the Committee for Mr. Torvinen? Thank you very much, Mr. Torvinen. We appreciate you being here again for the bill that you’re supporting.
Todd Torvinen:
Thank you very much.
Chairman Anderson:
Thank you. Let me close the hearing on Assembly Bill 101. I hesitate to use the term, but it appears to be a simple little bill. Mrs. Angle?
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 101.
ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Ohrenschall was not present for the vote.)
Chairman Anderson:
It appears to be Mr. Anderson’s bill, so we’ll let Mr. Anderson take care of it on the Floor.
We have a couple of things to do business-wise here in preparation for next week [the Committee discussed matters off the record, and background materials were distributed]. So that you have an understanding about where we’re going, note that we’re going to be doing a work session on Wednesday, and that we’re only partially scheduled through the following week. That should give us a clear idea what the workload ahead of us is. We’re moving at a pretty good pace, much faster than everybody else around us, I know that. Our workload is pretty heavy. I think we’re one bill short of having 75, either one or two short, of having 75 bills referred to this Committee. Currently, as of the day before yesterday, there was one that was referred yesterday we haven’t taken possession of yet, so it’s not up on the board.
We have several Senate bills that we’re going to be able to move on here; in fact, we have one scheduled next week. A.B. 92, let me kind of warn you in advance, for those of you who are trying to read it and understand it, good luck. It’s one of those bills that you wait for the guys who deal with that uniform-commercial-code-kind of questions to come forward and tell you how they want the block re-sanded to fit the situation, and they’re the ones that understand it so you’ll all kind of sit there and take a deep breath unless you happen to be a recent law school graduate or are planning to enter into this area. It’s probably not likely that you’re going to have a lot of people who are going to be talking about it. Is there another handout? [Laughter.]
The topic came up, in part today, this was delivered yesterday for distribution to the Committee from the Neighborhood Mediation Centers (Exhibit F) as a background piece, talk a little bit about it, where it comes from and what it does. Trip Barthel is the executive director of the one here in Washoe County and tries to keep me aware of what’s going on in theirs. You might have a better understanding of that process. I’m sure that there’ll be one coming from Clark County here soon, if we haven’t received it already; I haven’t seen it yet, just in case for those of you that are interested in that kind of stuff. As soon as the amount of paperwork reaches the wing, we get to fly.
Again, if there’s some piece of information you need, please talk to Ms. Combs or Ms. Lang. If there’s a bill that we pass and there comes to be a problem with it, or I note if somebody brings me some additional information, I’ll try to bring it back to you here for clarification. I know there’s a couple of pieces that I need to make sure that we have some clarity on in drafting the amendments and some additional choices that may need to be made. I don’t want the Committee to feel that the Chair does this by himself. We’re adjourned [at 9:33 a.m.].
Carrie Lee
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: