MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session May 10, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Wednesday, May 10, 1995, Chairman Buckley presiding in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman Mr. David E. Humke, Chairman Ms. Barbara E. Buckley, Vice Chairman Mr. Brian Sandoval, Vice Chairman Mr. Thomas Batten Mr. John C. Carpenter Mr. David Goldwater Mr. Mark Manendo Mrs. Jan Monaghan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Mr. Richard Perkins Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider Ms. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Mark A. James, District No. 8 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: The Honorable Robey Willis, Nevada Judges Association The Honorable Nancy Oesterle, Nevada Judges Association OTHERS PRESENT: (Continued) Mr. Ron Coury, citizen The Honorable John J. Kadlic, Nevada Judges Association Ms. Dona Jeppson, Reno Justice Court Ms. Susan Deriso, Reno Justice Court Mr. Steve Dahl, N. Las Vegas Justice Court Mr. Greg Harwell, Nevada AAA Mr. Bob Hadfield, NACO Ms. Patricia Justice, Legislative Representative, Clark County Ms. Elizabeth Livingston, Nevada Women's Lobby Ms. Judy A. Friederich, MA, IBCLC, Northern Nevada Medical Center, State WIC Breastfeeding Promotion Program Ms. Janis Honea Mr. Bill Bible, Chairman, Nevada Gaming Control Board SENATE BILL NO. 317 - Provides that breast feeding of infant does not violate certain statutes pertaining to decency and morals. Senator Mark A. James, District No. 8, sponsor, testified the bill encourages a beneficial relationship between a mother and a child. A woman has a right to breast feed a child anywhere that she has a right otherwise to be. Many other states have clarified their laws like this. Senator James views it as a civil rights issue. Senator James advised the bill sets forth a number of findings, and he shared with the committee a few. The genesis of the bill came from Senator James' wife, whose has been for several years a member of a group called the La Leche League. In that capacity she has counseled many mothers who experienced difficulty breast feeding in public. Former Governor O'Callaghan has editorialized in the Sun urging passage of this bill. Mr. Anderson asked if there were any incidents of a gross misdemeanor or felony charge of breast feeding. Senator James was not aware of any incidents. Ms. Steel commented there is a potential of a charge of gross misdemeanor when breast feeding in public. Ms. Steel expressed her appreciation for Senator James' efforts. Ms. Elizabeth Livingston, Nevada Women's Lobby, testified in support of S.B. 317. ASSEMBLYMAN STEEL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 317. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 539 - Provides criminal penalty for failure to pay for parts specifically made for gaming devices. Assemblyman Schneider, District No. 42, sponsor, testified this is a good small business bill. It does affect gaming and he did not know of any opponents from the gaming industry. This has to do with manufactured parts from subcontractor for gaming equipment. Mr. Schneider introduced Mr. Ron Coury, a subcontractor for gaming parts in Nevada. Mr. Ron Coury, Las Vegas businessman, employs approximately 50 people. His company designs and manufactures the fronts for slot machines as well as decals and real strips for those machines. They design themes that may make gaming more attractive to a particular machine. Mr. Coury cited an existing statute NRS 463.0129 which has been sufficient for many years to protect his industry. Mr. Coury pointed to paragraph 1.b which states, "the continued growth and success of gaming is dependent upon public confidence and trust that licensed gaming is conducted honestly and competitively. That the rights of creditors of licensees are protected. It is the rights of the creditors of licensees that causes him to seek this measure. The incredible growth in gaming in the United States necessitates the clarification and expansion under this statute. Mr. Coury stated part of the problem is because there are manufacturers and casinos that are in and out of our state and country. They all use Nevada vendors for supply parts. Mr. Coury has a very small customer base. There is just a handful of manufacturers and casinos in his industry as compared to other industries. If that person fails to pay for merchandise, they should be sued to recover payment. If there is a good paper trail and contract, one will get paid. When Mr. Coury has under a dozen major worldwide manufacturers for his customer base and it is that very limited customer base that helps employ 50 Nevadans, he will only have to sue one of them one time for nonpayment. His profit margin is fifteen percent. Mr. Coury did not believe his industry is in a position to utilize the justice system for nonpayment if they would like to stay in business. Mr. Coury was hopeful for stricter regulations requiring payment without putting us through the legal system available will enable him to continue to be competitive. Mr. Anderson drew attention to Section 1, 1(b), ll. 10-12, and asked what happens when the logo or the color scheme is not acceptable. Would this section require them to pay since the work would be substantially in compliance but not totally. Mr. Coury advised he was not comfortable with this provision too. Mr. Coury related an example of a casino work order. A color photograph was provided for approval prior to manufacture. However, an out of state casino changed the specifications after the manufacture. This was an incident where a substantial loss resulted because neither side wanted to pay. Mr. Goldwater advised he is employed by a group of doctors. Part of his job was cash management. Nothing would make his employers happier than a statute that provided a penalty to the debtors that do not pay promptly. Mr. Goldwater could not think of one business who would not like a specific criminal penalty when their terms of credit were violated or even partially breached. Mr. Goldwater asked Mr. Coury if he was restricted from using other cash management techniques, i.e., accounts receivable requiring deposits. Mr. Goldwater asked what makes this bill necessary as opposed to any other industry in the world that would want specific criminal penalties for their debtors. Mr. Coury replied the answer was, they are not precluded; however, the margins in his industry are slim because the casinos are very aggressive on controlling costs. When Mr. Coury goes to a doctor's office the fees are the fee he could pay or he could leave; but, it is not often negotiable. Mr. Coury is ground to the point of a dollar a glass. Where you will get it if it is two dollars a glass less. When your margins are that slim and he pointed out when a mistake is made in the print process, the job has to be printed over, but the bill will not change. Mistakes happen. It is not a perfect process. Another big difference is the small customer base. With gaming spreading across the country, even if not licensed in Nevada, they would be compelled to not be in violation of the Nevada law. The normal means of recovery are not available to Mr. Coury if he wants to stay in business and keep a customer. Mr. Schneider advised it is a privileged industry. If this law passes and someone would not pay their bill, the gaming commission would make sure that licensee meet their responsibilities or lose their license. This bill assists the whole industry to be above board to make sure they act in a proper manner since it is a privileged license. Mr. Coury advised most of his work is proprietary work. Mr. Coury cannot sell a glass that says, "ABC Casino" to anyone else. He cannot sell a glass that a manufacturer has copyrighted as their theme machine, i.e., Jackpots of Gold. If he printed a thousand of them and went through the system and recovered the glass, he legally could not sell them to anyone else. Unlike most other industries, Mr. Coury could recover a car, television to resell. The products that Mr. Coury produces are not resalable. Ms. Ohrenschall pointed out in a gaming establishment there is more than one person who has to be cleared by the gaming control board and commission and asked who exactly would be imprisoned under this bill. Mr. Coury replied the licensee who is responsible for the actions of their employees. Ms. Ohrenschall asked if it would include a key employee. Mr. Coury did not believe so. It says the licensee. Mr. Coury stated with this language in the bill no one would be put in prison. They would be compelled to pay their bill. Nevertheless, Ms. Ohrenschall asserted he was asking the legislature to provide imprisonment penalties for failure to pay a debt. Ms. Ohrenschall stated one of the things that made the American system of justice better than Eighteenth Century England is that we do not have a debtor's prison. The things that are described in Charles Dickens do not exist. You have to do something wrong before you go to jail. Ms. Ohrenschall has serious problems with asking for imprisonment. Also, Ms. Ohrenschall did not see how the law could be enforced out of state on a debtor. It is unenforceable by its nature. Mr. Schneider advised they were tough on crime. Mr. Coury advised language was copied from Nevada's bad check law with provisions for jail. Ms. Ohrenschall inquired if Mr. Coury could complain to the gaming authorities. Mr. Coury advised he could complain to the gaming authorities just as he could take them to court and never see them again as a customer. Mr. Batten shared the same concerns as Ms. Ohrenschall. Mr. Batten did not see the need for this bill. For one there are court remedies. Two, if it is a bad customer, you would not want to keep them and extend credit. Mr. Batten shared the same concerns of Mr. Anderson on Section 1, 1(b), and Mr. Goldwater's concern. Mr. Batten stated the gaming control board should have control over this. If they are unable to do it, maybe let the federal government handle it. Mr. Coury answered he did not say any of them were bad customers. As Assemblyman Goldwater pointed out there are money management systems in business. The money management that is employed is retaining their money that is owed to him for the maximum length of time. People are intimidated into not exercising the rights that are available to them. Mr. John Riggs, Sr., representing his son in the gaming business, testified against A.B. 539. His son repairs and services slot machines. Mr. Riggs related a problem where a special part would be ordered for an antique slot machine which falls under the gaming law. The manufacturer completes the part with bill and it is paid. However, the manufacturer does not send him the parts right away. How is the money recouped for the previously paid order? Under Section 1, 1(b), it does not put the monkey upon the back of the manufacturer to make certain the part is delivered. There must be recourse to recover the payment. Mr. Riggs considered this a flaw in the bill. Mr. Bill Bible, Chairman, Nevada Gaming Control Board, testified this bill may not resolve Mr. Coury's problem. As he read the bill, it would be a contract between a gaming licensee and licensed manufacturer. The activities Mr. Coury related do not have a requirement that one be licensed. Mr. Bible expressed empathy for the businessman in a dispute with a licensee; they do not want to take recourse to the civil action because they are afraid they will lose business. Similarly, if they would contact Mr. Bible's office, he would contact the licensee to determine why the obligation had not been paid. In terms of the penalty provisions of the law they make it criminal. Mr. Bible stated it would be more appropriate if a gaming licensee did not pay their obligation in a manner agreed to with subcontractors, action can be taken against their gaming license under a number of options available. Progressive discipline is enforced through a series of steps with licensees to encourage compliance with regulations. Mr. Bible noted the bill does not apply to Mr. Coury's situation because it only addresses contracts between gaming licensees. Presiding Chairman Buckley expressed appreciation to Mr. Bible for his willingness to work on this bill with Mr. Schneider and Mr. Coury to address the concerns raised. Mr. Carpenter requested confirmation of action if a manufacturer made a complaint against a licensee. Mr. Bible advised they do and it typically resolves the problem. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 540 - Increases monetary limits relating to claims in justices' courts. Assemblyman Schneider, District No. 42, sponsor, testified this bill was proposed to increase the maximum amount to $10,000 for small claims. Over the years inflation has eaten away at the number that we have had in place, for example, if you go buy a car today it is $20,000-$30,000 for a decent car, big screen TV, $5800. Mr. Schneider advised this bill is geared for the small businessman. Today someone will get a poison pen letter from an attorney and send it to the businessman. They want to threaten to sue the businessman. The businessman then goes and settles for $8,000 or $9,000. He would be money and time ahead rather than going all the way through court. They are basically blackmailed a lot. Mr. Schneider informed this has happened to his brother in the real estate business who had to retain full time legal counsel. If the limits were increased in small claims court to resolve the conflicts, it takes a big burden off the businessman of this state. Mr. Schneider deferred to Mr. Coury, a small businessman in Ms. Buckley's district. Mr. Ron Coury, small businessman of two small casinos and wholesale glass and mirror company, testified in support of A.B. 540. The threshold of small claims is based upon what items used to cost. The type of letter Mr. Schneider described received from an attorney is the type received often by a small businessman. Mr. Coury estimated to employ an attorney for the recovery of small claims is a minimum of $10,000. When you prevail, you are guaranteed recovery of attorney's fees in full. If the small businessman had the opportunity to argue his own case, it would not be as costly for the small businessman. The Honorable Robey Willis, Justice of the Peace, Municipal Judge of Carson City, and Legislative Chairman of Nevada Judges Association, accompanied by President of Nevada Judges Association, Nancy Oesterle, of Las Vegas, and James Jackson, Nevada State Public Defender, testified. Judge Willis informed the issue of inflation has been addressed every session. Judge Willis advised the limits of most of the states have been reviewed. For background information, Judge Willis asked Mr. Jackson to provide testimony. Mr. James Jackson advised in 1991 while a member of Nevada Judges Association he served as their legislative chairman and liaison. Prior to that in 1989, Mr. Jackson understood the small claims amount had been raised at that time in 1991. It was maintained in small claims at $2500; but, civil justice court actions were raised from $2500 to $5000 as a result of a compromise reached between the Nevada Judges Association, various business interests, and Assemblyman Porter of Las Vegas. Assemblyman Porter indicated it was an adequate remedy for some time to come and Nevada Judges Association would like to not visit the issue again for at least two to three sessions. In 1993 the issue again arose with a bill which was somewhat similar to A.B. 540. Again a compromise was achieved raising the small claims limit from $2500 to $3500 and civil justice court actions to $7500. The difference between small claims and civil justice court actions is basically the formality. There are more discovery and formal rules of procedure in the justice court action as opposed to the small claims action. In 1993 with assurances from Senator Collister, it was to be the last time the issue would be visited for some time to come. Unfortunately, the Nevada Judges Association finds themselves here again. Judge Willis distributed a small claims information sheet, attached as (Exhibit C). He called the states in the surrounding courts on the small claims and formal justice court to see where Nevada stood. Arizona is the only state similar to Nevada with the two tiered system. Nevada seems to be the only state that allows appeals in small claims. Judge Willis testified they are adamantly opposed to compromise this time; but, they ended up compromising the fee structure. The fee schedule raises by the amount that one files for. It was raised from $6500 to $7500 under formal justice court actions to $150, see civil limit increases (Exhibit D). If this bill is enacted the fee schedule should be raised accordingly to offset the cost of the court. When the fee was raised in 1991 to $5000, they had to add another clerk in Carson City. Judge Steve McMorris of Lake Tahoe advised during 1993 session if it raises too much, a courthouse wing would have to be added on. The Honorable Nancy Oesterle, Las Vegas Justice Court, and President of Nevada Judges Association, testified membership expressed concern and disappointment over the proposed A.B. 540. It proposes an increase to small claims of 185% and 66% in civil. The average nationwide limit is $2,750. Nevada is among the nine highest states in small claims already. If it is increased to $10,000 Nevada will be the highest in the country for small claims. In Las Vegas alone the requested increase would add another 9,000 small claims cases a year and $3,000 civil cases a year. There are 48,000 documents filed per year, not counting court time. Judge Oesterle pointed out the recommendation of no fiscal impact on the bill is not realistic. If enacted the Las Vegas Justice Court Administrator prepared an amended analysis of fiscal impact, attached as (Exhibit E). Judge Oesterle informed they do not have the facilities to add more storage, staff and facilities. Judge Oesterle advised it would eliminate small claims altogether and merge justice court and district court together. The constitution allows for civil jury trials. Judge Oesterle asked if justice court should hold civil jury trials in $10,000-$12,000 disputes. If you want to see the system come to a halt, increase the limits. Judge Oesterle stated the main concern is the criminal cases. Nevada is the third highest in the nation in violent crimes. Once the Governor's crime bill and truth in sentencing goes into effect, it will generate even more cases. Currently, there are fifteen preliminary hearings a day. The criminal calendar will be given priority over civil cases. Judge Oesterle informed the vast majority of JP's are nonlawyers and are good, hard working people; and, she admires them greatly. The reason they do not want the limits increased is because when a $10,000-$12,000 threshold is reached, the trials will require evidentiary decisions, procedural mandates, discovery decisions with potentially technical cases with two to five attorneys. Nonlawyer judges will be presiding over cases of large magnitude. Based upon the promises of former legislators, Judge Oesterle is disappointed the issue is raised again. Judge Oesterle urged the committee to let them live with the hand dealt in 1993 and do not deal a new hand with new jurisdictions and new problems every two years. The other courts are not increased or changed every two years. Judge Oesterle informed this quarter alone there was a 39% increase in small claims without a limit increase. The Honorable John J. Kadlic, Washoe County Justice Court, testified in 1992 small claims processed were 3,723. In 1994 it dropped to 3,353; however, in 1992 civil cases were 4,044 which increased to 5,861 in a two year period. Further, when limits are increased, executions have to be added. In 1992 there were 2,737 executions issued in Reno Justice Court. In 1994 it increased to 3,966. In comparison to district courts, Judge Kadlic informed Second Judicial District Court in 1994 had 8,265 civil cases filed. Justice court has 9,214 in civil filings, more than district court. There are nine district court judges and two family court judges and Washoe County has only four justices of the peace, one supervisor, four staff members. Fiscal impact to employ more staff would be detrimental to Washoe County. Judge Kadlic informed as far as operating requests, the budget department requests $9.2 MD over what they have to use for operations. It is also $23.3 MD above capital requests. There are going to be serious budget cuts for various departments. Judge Kadlic's budget is status quo as of last year. Another matter to take into consideration is the loss of $25,000- $60,000 in revenues to the county in filing fees alone by moving the jurisdiction without increasing the filing fees. Judge Kadlic would need more staff at a cost of approximately $37,000 a piece for two more clerks in order to handle the additional workload. Collection agencies do 250-300 filings per month in justice court; 150-200 filing in small claims per month. They anticipate justice court would increase by one-third and small claims by one-fourth. Judge Kadlic agreed with Judge Oesterle in that criminal calendar will have priority. Judge Kadlic expressed concern of enticing people to sue for the maximum limit instead of a more realistic amount. Judge Kadlic advised presently he is able to continue a hearing for a week or two to give the person an opportunity to bring someone to help him out that they need as their experts. If the workload is increased, he will not have that luxury anymore and will have to dismiss the case. Mr. Carpenter disclosed that Judge Kadlic was one of the good guys from Elko that Washoe County was fortunate to steal. They are going to get him back though. Ms. Steel advised she signed on the bill to have it heard. Also, to be able to express a concern that she experienced when in private practice. Many times people do have the $10,000 claim that no attorney will touch because it is not enough for them. Ms. Steel asked where do we put these people. Judge Oesterle responded attorney's fees are not given even if they prevail. They have to file in district court if they want attorney's fees. Judge Oesterle agreed it is a problem. Ms. Ohrenschall inquired if a businessman can file on his own in district court. Judge Oesterle nodded affirmatively. Judge Kadlic informed his court does award attorney's fees in answer to Ms. Steel's question. Judge Oesterle clarified she referred to $3500 limit in small claims. Mr. Sandoval asked if the caseload will increase dramatically because if it is at $12,500 with counsel, the plaintiff will be able to seek attorney's fees. Judge Oesterle advised he was absolutely correct. If small claims were increased only to $5,000, it will be a 43% increase. If increased to $10,000, it will be a 33% increase. Judge Oesterle reiterated there will be a huge amount of people going to justice court. Mr. Sandoval asked if there will be more potential for all out litigation because there will be more attorneys involved; and, therefore, fill the calendar up that much more. Judge Oesterle advised of a huge increase in service over the last two years. Attorneys love to file motions either to justify their existence or they think they might win. They have tons of motions, orders to show cause, default judgement motion, debtor examination, and discovery. A limit of four motions per case had to be set. This is not experienced in a small claims action. Ms. Steel restated it was not a person with an attorney who wants their attorney's fees. It was a person who cannot afford an attorney in the first place. Now they have to go into district court without an attorney. Quite often the amount is $7500-$10,000. Ms. Steel stated it was her concern of where do these people go that do not understand the system even in justice court or small claims. Ms. Steel asked for suggestions of what can be done. Judge Kadlic responded for one thing if it is over $7500, he would assume if attorney's fees are awarded in district court, an attorney will take the case. Judge Kadlic agreed there is a high cost of legal services and something needs to be done to give the person at that level some ability to have an attorney because they would benefit. Judge Kadlic did not know what the answer is. People are sent to the slaughter if they appear in court and do not know the rules of civil procedure. Do you want to try a $10,000 case in front of a judge who is only going to give you 15-30 minutes to hear the case. Judge Kadlic assumed trial lawyers supported the arbitration system of under $25,000. Raising the limit to $12,500 would defeat the purpose. It might be better to send all cases under $25,000 to arbitration in the first place. Most of the other states do not have justice courts and municipal courts doing these types of cases. Judge Kadlic recommended mandating all cases under $25,000 that are civil in nature to go to arbitration instead of having the exemption. No attorney has ever agreed in Judge Kadlic's 12-year tenure on the bench to send their case to arbitration. The Honorable Steve Dahl, Las Vegas Justice Court, testified he has the largest single justice court jurisdiction in the state of Nevada. As far as fiscal impact is concerned, Judge Dahl advised they will definitely go over 100,000 people over the next two years and qualify for a second justice of the peace. It is Judge Dahl's goal not to do that because he is in a courtroom that is not expandable. It would require the building of a new courthouse at an expense of $7 MD to the taxpayers of the county. If this increase is enacted, there would be no way he would be able to handle the caseload. Judge Dahl addressed a few practical matters. Justice courts are being impacted on two ends. There is a lot of criminal law being passed by this session. The amount of preliminary hearings set any given day really do not reflect on the workload. It is the amount of hearings that go. Currently, he does criminal cases four days a week and civil one day a week. Each criminal calendar day, he has a minimum of ten preliminary hearings set. On a typical day one or two of those go forward. Judge Dahl anticipated with the new legislation the number will go to four or five because a lot of incentives to plea bargain are going to be taken away. Judge Dahl advised he does not have the facilities to accommodate civil trials. Judge Dahl considered $10,000 to be too high for small claims. If someone gets sued for $10,000 they have the right to hire an attorney and seek attorney fees. In small claims that is not available. Judge Dahl pointed out from the proponent's remarks, the whole premise of this bill is wrong. The premise of the bill was if you get a nasty letter from an attorney and rather than do litigation, the money is paid. If small claims court were available, one would not have to worry about it. Judge Dahl advised it does not work that way. When a nasty letter is received from an attorney, one has two choices, either pay the demand or wait for the plaintiff to do something. The defendant cannot take a case into small claims court after they get a nasty letter. This legislation will create a small claims market which will bog down the justice courts for no good reason. Judge Dahl considered arbitration to be the answer. If plaintiff goes proper per in district court, the first thing they get is arbitration. They will probably get more attention and a fair hearing in arbitration than they will get in justice court. In 1991 Mr. Anderson advised of a bill that set up a scheme where JP courts would be able to generate additional courts based upon population factor in which Judge Dahl's township is close to generating another JP. The two large counties have different multipliers and less populated counties would have a lower standard. Mr. Anderson expressed concern if the JP court is supposed to be doing its job for the people and because we set into a population base where the JP can service the people in his township that the judge wishes to withhold that service based upon the fact that it is an inconvenience to the county to purchase the additional court space because it is an inconvenient element for the county to provide court space; therefore, justice should be denied. Judge Dahl stated that was not what he was saying. Judge Dahl clarified if one could provide the service without adding the expense, then you should try and do it. If the justice court and staff are not working at 100% capacity and population base goes over 100,000, then they should be able to extend themselves beyond that and work a little harder and avoid the expense of adding a justice of the peace simply because the population level increased. Judge Dahl commented if he cannot provide the service, he will request the additional judge. As it is now, if the limits remain in place and increase in criminal cases remains the same, they could handle above 100,000 people and still provide the service. If the caseload drastically increases based on the increase in civil jurisdiction, then justice court will not be able to do it. Judge Dahl informed his first priority is to provide proper service to the community. If it can be done without increasing the size of the court, it is appropriate also. Mr. Anderson noted the reason the legislature determined it is based upon population and not on how a particular judge perceives his caseload. As the court requirements are increased, it is based upon the needs of the people and not on the needs of a particular court. Presiding Chairman Buckley asked Judge Dahl if he utilized referees to decide small claims in his jurisdiction. Judge Dahl advised he did not. Ms. Dona C. Jeppson, Court Administrator, Reno Justice Court, also past President of Nevada Association for Court Clerks and Administrators, testified that by raising the limits it will do a disservice to the public for a number of reasons. From the clerk's point of view, small claims are low in priority due to the criminal calendar. Ms. Jeppson advised in 45 days a small claims action can be heard. Usually the older the case, the harder it is to collect even if a judgment is awarded. By having increased cases, it will be prolonged. Ms. Jeppson has also witnessed there have been times when the criminal calendar bogs down the court so much that small claims cannot be heard. Many people are ill prepared in hearings. People need assistance in the rules of procedure and filing. The number of executions will increase to satisfy a $10,000 judgment when only 25% of the take home pay can be attached at one time. If they are not able to execute, there is another remedy in that they can come back to court and ask for supplementary proceedings and aid of execution. Again, it will take more time. Ms. Jeppson would appreciate whatever consideration that can be given in trying to hold the line in small claims so they can continue to serve the public they are there to serve. Ms. Susan Deriso, Chief Civil Clerk, Reno Justice Court, current chairman of the education committee of Nevada Association of Court Clerks and Administrators, testified in preparation of the paperwork performed. There are mountains of paperwork in her office which is manual in the civil division. The increase in limits would be tremendous on her staff. They do keep records of balance owed on judgments and type up attachments of wages on small claims. Mr. Gregory B. Harwell, Legislative Representative, Governmental Affairs Department, Nevada AAA, testified against A.B. 540, and his letter is attached as (Exhibit F). Approximately 78% of personal injury claims fall under $10,000. Over 90% of property damage claims fall under $10,000. Virtually all of the motor vehicle accidents could fall into the small claim setting. Mr. Sandoval requested clarification if there was an absolute bar to having an attorney represent one in small claims. Mr. Harwell was uncertain of Nevada procedures, it is probably similar to California. In California a defendant cannot have an attorney there to testify or present the case. The attorney could be in the audience. They require the defendant to present his entire case. There are a few that do allow the defendants to ask for expert witness testimony. Mr. Sandoval acknowledged one of the judges nodding that attorneys can appear in a Nevada small claims action. Mr. Sandoval considered it important for the committee to be aware of this. If the limit is increased, there would be a tremendous incentive to hire the attorney anyway and spend one or two to get ten. Mr. Bob Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties, testified he participated in the dialogue of measures that the judges outlined for a number of years. On behalf of the association he supports the position of the Nevada Judges Association. Mr. Hadfield recommended there is merit to wait and see what the implications of all the various changes in the laws being made this session have on the court system. It would be appropriate to look at this in two years. Ms. Patricia Justice, Legislative Representative, Clark County, offered to work with the committee to develop amendments A.B. 540. Ms. Justice recommended increasing the filing fees in conjunction with any increase in the jurisdictional amounts. Mr. Manendo advised his concerns were addressed by questions of the committee. Mr. Manendo commended Assemblyman Schneider for bringing forth what he feels is important legislation that needs to be addressed. Mr. Manendo was very disappointed when he heard that maybe the justice courts were inconvenienced by responding to an issue they have to hear repeatedly. It is a new year, new legislature, and a new judiciary committee. Mr. Manendo has never heard this debate because he is a freshman. It troubles him when people say they are disappointed they have to come up to Carson City and talk about this issue again. This is new to him and he is not aware of previous compromises and it needs to be debated. It is important that as an elected official who brought forth this legislation, we need to hear this. Presiding Chairman Buckley concurred that Mr. Manendo raised a good point. No prior legislature can bind following legislatures. It is important especially for freshmen like Mr. Manendo, other committee members, and herself to hear concerns of public policy, the court, and small businesses in collecting debts. Presiding Chairman Buckley also appreciated the good discussion held today. Presiding Chairman Buckley announced the appointment of A.B. 540 subcommittee composed of Mr. Schneider, Mr. Humke, Mrs. Monaghan, and herself to consider all the points raised today. Mr. Anderson announced a one-day planned trip to Project Challenge in Phoenix, AZ. Mr. Anderson submitted BDR 15-848 which makes various changes to provisions prohibiting abuse, neglect, and exploitation of older persons from the Division of Aging Services and asked for committee introduction. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 15-848. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Goldwater accepted assignment of S.B. 317 on the floor. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 10:05 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Barbara E. Buckley, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary May 10, 1995 Page