MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-second Session
February 20, 2003
The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Mark E. Amodei, at 8:08 a.m., on Thursday, February 20, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Mark Amodei, Chairman
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Vice Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Dennis Nolan
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Valerie Wiener
Senator Terry Care
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Assembly District No. 8
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Barbara Moss, Committee Secretary
Lora Nay, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
The Honorable Deborah A. Agosti, Chief Justice, Supreme Court
The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Associate Justice, Supreme Court
Ron Titus, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Administrator, Supreme Court
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County
Rick R. Loop, Lobbyist, Eighth Judicial District Court
William A. S. Magrath II, Attorney
Wayne Pressel, Executive Director, Nevada Legal Services
Judge Ed Dannan, Justice of the Peace, Reno Township (Department 2), Washoe County
Melody L. Luetkehans, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Realtors
Jon L, Sasser, Lobbyist, Washoe Legal Services
Misty R. Davies, Lobbyist, Northern Nevada Apartment Association and Southern Nevada Multi-Housing Association
Ray Rodriguez, Nevada Legal Services
Chairman Mark Amodei opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 106 and referenced Exhibit C.
SENATE BILL 106: Authorizes county clerks to impose additional fee for filing of certain actions and responses thereto in district courts to offset portion of costs of providing technology to courts. (BDR 2‑614)
The Honorable Deborah A. Agosti, Chief Justice, Supreme Court, began testimony with comments providing a brief background for S.B. 106. She said multiple parties were charged the flat filing fee on an increasing number of complicated civil actions. Raising filing fees could help with expenses associated with the increased workload of the more complicated multiparty cases. Suggested changes provided for the collection of a $30 fee for each additional party answering or appearing in an action. Exhibit D provided an explanation and more information.
The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Associate Justice, Supreme Court, agreed the $30 fee was critical for legal services and would not be particularly burdensome. The $5 component for retired justices and district court judges would help keep the courts functioning and minimize the number of future district judges needed. Judge Gibbons said the component proposing the delivery of legal services to the elderly and the indigent was critical and continued federal funding was not expected even though the need for the program persisted. He added this was an access to justice issue.
Ron Titus, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Administrator, Supreme Court, explained the portion of the fee going to technological needs. Ten dollars would go to the State level supporting statewide technology efforts, especially for rural courts. Eight dollars would go to individual county general funds for local projects.
Senator McGinness said he wondered how many counties provided legal services and whether or not they would all receive the $7 for their general funds. He asked, “What type of statewide technological support would go to rural Nevada?”
Mr. Titus then described a project called the Nevada Rural Court System, which was primarily aimed at the rural courts. He said the first project had already been installed in Pahrump and the next planned site would be located in Sparks. There was some discussion as to the concept of Sparks being a rural area. Mr. Titus explained Sparks was chosen because it was close and could be used for practice. A companion project would help the Nevada Investigation Division integrate law enforcement throughout Nevada, he said.
Historically, Mr. Titus stated, the mission of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) had been to provide technology throughout the State. Since larger jurisdictions tended to be better supported by their county commissions, there was a greater emphasis from the AOC in providing for the technological needs of the rural courts. Everything, Mr. Titus added, from providing computers and making the hookups to reporting statistics would enhance the efficiency of the courts. The AOC had been directly supporting the rural courts by hosting the software, the computers, the servers, and also by paying for the telecommunication lines to the courts. He added, rural courts did not have enough people who knew the computer business.
In response to a question from Senator Wiener, Mr. Titus explained the projections were based on the best information available. He estimated approximately $1 million statewide would be received per year. Since the proposed fee increase was additional funding, he said it should be sufficient and did not foresee having to make another funding request in the near future. The proposed fee, he said, should enable the State and local courts to enhance their technology fund for quite awhile.
Chairman Amodei requested clarification on both the filing fee and what the expected revenues were expected to accomplish. Mr. Titus explained the initial base-filing fee would not change and only the additional parties would be assessed the increased fee. These fees would defray expenses, fund technology for the courts, help provide legal services to indigent or elderly persons, and provide for the payment of services received from retired justices and district court judges. Technology required continual support he added, and was expected by the public. Requirements placed upon the courts included electronic filing, public access to documents on the Internet, and whatever else may be available 5 years from now, he said.
The Nevada Association of Counties lobbyist, Andrew A. List, did not wish to speak and was neutral on S.B. 106. The lobbyist for the Nevada Judges Association, Karen Kavanau, did not wish to speak, but supported the measure.
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County, requested to go on the record in support of S.B. 106. He began his remarks by presenting statistics from the year 2002. Thirty‑two thousand civil and domestic cases were filed in the Eighth Judicial Court. Fifteen thousand of those cases were first-time civil and domestic appearances. Based on a conservative 6 percent, there would be $1 million in expected revenues statewide. About $257,000 of those revenues would be for Clark County.
Mr. Musgrove continued, due to the complexity and the number of cases being filed, litigants and attorneys had been demanding more technological advances and more technological access to court documents. The additional money would help put together a system to meet some of the demands the litigants and attorneys had requested, such as E-mail notification on case status, access to court documents, and electronic payment of fees. He said it was the goal of the AOC to provide those types of services to users.
Concerning the additional party fee, Senator Wiener asked what dollars would be projected to the coffers for the indigent and elderly. Mr. Musgrove indicated he would work on a reply and report back.
Rick R. Loop, Lobbyist, Eighth Judicial District Court, said he was very much in support of S.B. 106.
Next to testify was William A. S. Magrath II, Attorney. He said he was a private attorney in Reno with the law firm of McDonald Carano Wilson for 20 years and formerly a deputy district attorney. He said he also served as president of the Washoe County Bar Association, and for the past 3 years had been the president of the Access to Justice Foundation in Washoe County. His testimony in support of S.B. 106 stressed the unmet legal needs of the indigent and elderly. Referring to the impact of television court shows and their inability to afford legal fees, he said many litigants had decided they could show up in court, unrepresented by counsel, thus clogging up the courts. He said we had created a group of people who were very dissatisfied with our legal system.
Mr. Magrath explained the technological advances of the court system would be an advantage to all lawyers and litigants. Nevada had grown 66 percent over the last 10 years, he said, and the poverty level had grown approximately 73 percent. In the year 2000 there were approximately 205,000 people in Nevada who met 100 percent of the poverty level guidelines. There were also about 367,000 people in Nevada, 18.4 percent of the State population, who met 150 percent of poverty level guidelines. This was the group that really did need legal services, he said. If they could not pay a lawyer $250 an hour, and could not find some type of volunteer service, the net result would be an unmet need. The recommendation to increase filing fees would assist the people in this category.
Mr. Magrath said Nevada’s lawyers did volunteer their time. Groups such as Volunteer Lawyers of Washoe County, Clark County Legal Services, and Washoe Legal Services all mustered lawyers who volunteered time to assist with free legal services for the indigent. Unfortunately, the need was not met. He said additional funds would assist the legal services groups and were necessary to improve services.
Mr. Magrath continued, sometimes a plaintiff decided to sue many defendants, because of the shotgun approach, and was charged the basic filing fee. The many defendants had to respond. If the cost for additional parties were to be added, a few of the additional defendants might not be included in the suits and result in less clogging of our courts. Mr. Magrath suggested one of the indirect aspects of the additional fees might be to deter lawyers who decided to name everybody they could potentially think of in a lawsuit, thus it would create a more efficient court system.
Wayne Pressel, Executive Director, Nevada Legal Services, affirmed the testimony of Mr. Magrath and added there were three legal service organizations whose funding would benefit from the increased filing fees. Those services were Washoe Legal Services, Clark County Legal Services, and his organization, Nevada Legal Services, which operated statewide. In addition, he said, two significant senior law projects in Las Vegas and Reno would also benefit. However the true beneficiaries were not those organizations whose staffs work for nonprofit wages and in spartan conditions. He said the true beneficiaries would be the low-income populations of Nevada, the people who did not have meaningful access to the courts.
In response to Senator McGinness’s concern about rural populations, Mr. Pressel pointed out Nevada Legal Services was virtually their only available resource. Traditionally, the Carson City office served most of northern Nevada. He said services had been extended in several important ways. Elko County had a presence for 15 years and now had a permanent office and a staff person. Fallon and Pahrump received services through their family resource centers.
Mr. Pressel noted current filing fees barely brought $100,000 to the rural areas while bringing $600,000 or $700,000 dollars to Clark County. The filing fees, he said, when it came to Carson City, Elko, and Fallon, accounted for 75 percent of the activities in those areas. A check with Esmeralda County indicated their amount would be about $500. Mr. Pressel said resources were extraordinarily stretched in the rural areas. Nevada Legal Services currently had a staff consisting of three lawyers in Clark County, two in Reno, and two for all of rural Nevada. He noted ways to bolster their level of activity such as self-help centers and technology were needed to make services more available. A recently implemented innovation was an extensive Web site. Written materials and access to forms were provided, he said, as was assistance to the local justice courts.
Chairman Amodei stated the record should reflect Ernest Nielsen from the Washoe County Senior Law Project was supportive of S.B. 106. Written testimony from Elizabeth Gonzalez in support of the bill was also entered into the record, Exhibit E.
Chairman Amodei then closed the hearing on S.B. 106. He added the bill to the work session scheduled for the next day, giving the committee time to investigate the amendment more thoroughly.
Chairman Amodei opened the hearing on S.B. 107 and referenced Exhibit F.
SENATE BILL 107: Eliminates limitation on period of time in which county or city may authorize imposition of certain administrative assessments for provision of court facilities. (BDR 14‑415)
Judge Ed Dannan, Justice of the Peace, Reno Township (Department 2), Washoe County, began his testimony by explaining the purpose of S.B. 107. He said this bill would eliminate the sunset provision currently existing in the law and allow money for capital improvements to be collected by the courts without any time limitation. The result would eliminate concerns lenders had about the availability of money collected for loan. For example, he said, a lender may consider funding a judicial project with a 30-year loan. With the existing sunset provision of 25 years, there would be a difference in the time between the life of the loan and the collection of money. Some lenders were not willing to take such a risk. Judge Dannan explained Judge Tina Brisebill, Justice of the Peace, Pahrump Township, Nye County, was faced with just such a situation. She turned to the Nevada Judges Association for help in requesting and supporting this bill to eliminate the sunset clause.
Senator Amodei commented this issue revolved around financing capital improvements for an infrastructure at the local level. Mr. Dannan explained the court facilities assessments of $10 would be authorized to be imposed by the boards of county commissioners and could only be used for the purposes set forth in the statutes. The money in rural areas was not collected as fast as it was in the urban areas. He said they needed longer periods of time to be able to let the money collect and be dispersed for the capital improvements. In some cases, payment of the improvements exceeded the life of the statute.
Chairman Amodei observed the removal of years would result in infinity. He asked if doubling the existing time would address the problem. Judge Dannan said there was no opposition to doubling the period of time. A 50-year sunset provision would enable Judge Brisebill to proceed with the improvement she was proposing for Pahrump.
Senator Washington said he had spoken to Judge Brisebill previously and had a problem with leaving the clause indefinite. He had also talked to a Mr. James, and they had agreed on a proposal doubling the time limit to 50 years, which at least provided for a sunset. He suggested it could be revisited in the future.
With no further testimony, Chairman Amodei closed the hearing on S.B. 107. He then requested Judge Dannan to affirm the acceptability of a 50-year sunset provision with his colleagues and convey that information to Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel. Judge Dannan replied he had conferred with Karen Kavanau, a lobbyist for the Nevada Judges Association, who did affirm its membership was in favor of the 50-year provision.
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 107.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NOLAN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Amodei opened the hearing on S.B. 128 and referenced Exhibit G.
SENATE BILL 128: Allows tenant to recover immediate possession of premises from landlord under certain circumstances. (BDR 10-416)
Judge Dannan expressed his support of the bill with the proposed amendments, Exhibit H. He explained the bill would permit a tenant to bring an action in the event a landlord willfully excluded the tenant from a dwelling unit, or failed to provide essential services as required by Chapter 118A of the Nevada Revised Statutes. The bill would not alter the existing statutory scheme by which a landlord could commence an action against a tenant for violation of Chapter 118A. It would allow the tenant to file a complaint and request a hearing in the justice court within 5 judicial days instead of 2 weeks. The hearing would have to be provided within 3 days. Judge Dannan said other provisions in the bill included what would happen at the hearing and afterward. He said the Nevada Judges Association felt if a tenant was in a position described in this bill, they should have the remedy available of immediate access to a court for a hearing.
Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Assembly District No. 8, Assembly Majority Leader, and Executive Director of Clark County Legal Services, explained the history of S.B. 128. Clark County Legal Services with Nevada Legal Services embarked on a project whereby a standard form would be created for tenants to use when they were illegally locked out of their dwellings or had their utilities shut off. This should not happen, she said, but when it did, tenants contacted legal services in great distress. Often, when they were locked out of their unit, they could not get their prescriptions or their clothes, and they may have had kids. They often were advised to call the police. On egregious occasions, complaints were prepared.
With an illegal lockout, Ms. Buckley said, and with no eviction notice, legal preparation took hours of paperwork. She proposed a simplified form would be expedient and affordable. Senate Bill 128 would be a way to ensure tenants who were illegally locked out a quick chance of getting back into their units.
Senator Care stated he noticed the complaint could not be filed if an action was already pending for summary eviction. He then asked if a mandatory arbitration provision were contained in a lease, would the proposed statute trump it. Referring to subsection 6 of the bill, he asked if the tenant must provide proof the landlord had been properly served with a copy of the verified complaint and whether the landlord could be served even an hour before the hearing.
Judge Dannan indicated there was a provision in NRS Chapter 118A that governed landlord-tenant relations and anything in a rental agreement contrary to the provisions of the chapter were void. Ms. Buckley added that a timeline was not specified and in her opinion, she did not care if there was only an hour’s notice as the primary need was to resolve an illegal eviction quickly and then address the other issues later.
Melody L. Luetkehans, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Realtors, said she was testifying on behalf of approximately 2000 property managers. She stated she had a chance to work with Judge Dannan and Ms. Buckley and was supportive of S.B. 128 with the requested modification and amendments.
Judge Dannan added a procedure already was in place that got a tenant into court in a fairly rapid time frame, if the landlord filed a legal eviction. He said court hearings occurred everyday. What this bill would do was create another avenue to get a tenant into court rather than having to wait until a landlord filed an eviction. The tenant would have the opportunity to go directly to court and the landlord would have the opportunity to respond to the complaint filed.
Jon L. Sasser, Lobbyist, Washoe Legal Services, said he supported S.B. 128 and had worked with the realtors on the amendments. He said he had earlier talked to David Howard, Lobbyist, Northern Nevada Apartment Association and Southern Nevada Multi-Housing Association, to make sure there were no disagreements.
Misty R. Davies, Lobbyist, Northern Nevada Apartment Association and Southern Nevada Multi-Housing Association, said she also supported S.B. 128 and the proposed amendments, stating it promoted good landlord and tenant relations.
Ray Rodriguez, Attorney, Nevada Legal Services, said he provided free legal assistance, from the Carson City office, to persons of low incomes throughout rural Nevada. He testified S.B. 128 would resolve a number of problems. For example, he said, when people stayed in a motel for more than 30 days they were entitled to the protections of the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Sometimes motel owners were confused. When somebody did not pay their rent, the motel owners locked them out. Police were reluctant to get involved since this was a civil matter. He affirmed his support of the bill.
Additional written testimony, Exhibit I, from Marshall Schultz, was presented for the record. With no one else wishing to testify, Chairman Amodei closed the hearing on S.B. 128.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 128.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NOLAN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Amodei proposed introducing Bill Draft Request (BDR) 3‑446 as a judiciary committee bill.
Bill Draft Request 3-446: Imposes fee upon obligor each time employer withholds income for payment of support for a child. (Later introduced as S.B. 186).
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR‑3-446 AS A JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BILL.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NOLAN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Amodei submitted a request for a committee bill draft proposed by The Division of Parole and Probation and the Nevada Supreme Court under the title of “restoration of civil rights with right to bear arms.” He said it would change the application process from the parole board to the original sentencing court. Senator Titus asked if it would mean returning the privilege of gun ownership. Chairman Amodei explained the request was to have all civil rights restored, including the right to bear arms. The parole board met only twice a year, Chairman Amodei said, and most applications did not receive a hearing, as there were hundreds of requests. The proposal would provide a better chance for a hearing to restore all civil rights including the right to bear arms. Chairman Amodei read the proposal, Exhibit J.
Chairman Amodei explained the request was seen as a savings of operational costs for the parole board. Senator Care said he understood the reason for the bill, but was concerned about exactly what was contemplated by the term “civil rights” and asked staff to prepare an explanation. In addition, the right to bear arms under certain federal statutes was prohibited if the conviction was for crimes of domestic violence. Registration as a convicted felon might also apply, Senator Care said, and while these issues might not be relevant, they could generate concern. Senator Wiener asked about fiscal assistance and what kind of savings was expected. Chairman Amodei replied he anticipated information should come out in the hearing. He said it was a legitimate area for inquiry.
SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO SUBMIT A COMMITTEE BILL DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR THE RESTORATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS WITH THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. (Later introduced as S.B. 430).
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NOLAN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Senator Titus addressed the committee for the record. She stated:
Mr. Chairman, the Ed Vogel story in the RJ [Las Vegas Review-Journal]today had my quote about the gun advocates who handed out the bumper stickers and made it sound like I was calling those guys terrorists. I want the record to be very clear I was defending those guys and saying under this law they would be considered terrorists and that is why I thought the definition was too broad. I think everybody in the room except for that reporter understood that, but I want the record to show it.
Chairman Amodei had no objection for the record to reflect the clarification and said he did not remember seeing Mr. Vogel in the room. He then stated:
Senator Titus, let me indicate to the whole committee, to the extent that we can make any difference in terms of how things are categorized, for what we do or do not do in here from time to time, our record is always open for members to footnote other people’s opinions of what we were or were not thinking.
There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Amodei adjourned the meeting at 9:20 a.m.
Lora Nay,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Chairman
DATE: