Bill would let Nevada courts appoint receivers to fix severely substandard rental properties

Assemblymember Venetia Considine (sponsor) told the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee on the bill that AB211 would authorize district courts to declare residential properties ‘‘substandard’’ and, after specified findings, allow appointment of a receiver to repair or rehabilitate the property.

The bill is aimed at extreme cases in which code enforcement and local agencies have repeatedly tried to get an owner to make repairs but the owner ‘‘rebuffed, ignored, or . . . is unable to bring the property to code on their own,’’ Assemblymember Venetia Considine said. “AB 211 provides a solution to the extreme situation when a property is significantly substandard and all attempts to bring the property to standard are rebuffed, ignored, or the situation is where the owner is unable to bring up the property to code on their own.”

Committee members were told the measure covers the same procedures for counties and cities in separate sections and is not intended as an immediate receivership shortcut. ‘‘This is not an instant fix. This is only used or would be used in extreme circumstances when every other attempt to abate, fix, work with the property owner has been exhausted,’’ Considine said. Clark County representatives and other local officials described multi‑year cases in which large apartment buildings had repeated health‑and‑safety problems that code enforcement could not resolve.

Why it matters: Sponsors and county witnesses said the bill would give local governments one more legal tool to protect tenants and public safety when owners refuse to act, and to preserve surrounding property values. Opponents said the measure needs tighter due‑process language so owners clearly understand the required procedural steps before receivership can be imposed.

Key provisions and procedural guards - County and city tracks: The bill contains parallel county (sections 2–18) and city (sections 20–37) provisions with the same substantive standards. - Notice and timing: Sponsor testimony said conceptual amendments replace a short three‑day notice with a 30‑day notice in certain sections to ensure owners (for example, out‑of‑state owners or registered agents) receive mailed notice consistent with NRS 244.3605. - Court‑level declaration required: The district court must determine that a property is substandard before appointing a receiver. Sections cited by the sponsor list specific findings the court must make and allow the court to consider the history of agency contacts with the owner. - Costs, relocation and rights of tenants: If repairs affect safe occupancy, the bill permits the court to order the owner to pay reasonable relocation costs and requires the owner to offer returning tenants a first right of occupancy after repairs. The court may also order reasonable and actual costs to the city or county and require notice to tenants. Sponsor testimony said the bill permits the court to award attorney fees and costs in its discretion (language in the conceptual amendment). - Receivership duties and oversight: The bill sets duties for receivers, requires monthly reporting and enumerates processes for discharging a receiver. Sponsor witnesses emphasized the bill is limited so it ‘‘does not limit the rights available under any other provision of law’’ and does not strip constitutional protections.

Local examples, scope and concerns Clark County Government Affairs Manager Joanna Jacob and Clark County Commissioner Tic Sagerbloom described local incidents used to justify the bill: a large property with hundreds of units that had been the subject of multiple health‑district visits, reports of dead animals in a pool, homicides, drug activity and other conditions that made the building unsafe. ‘‘I have 200 tenants . . . I don't have a place to take 200 people and put them in another unit,’’ Commissioner Sagerbloom said, describing the difficulty of relocating large numbers of low‑income tenants. Jacob said some problems have persisted for months and years despite outreach and that the county sought a clear legal remedy.

Opposition and due‑process questions John Sandy of the Nevada State Department Association testified in opposition, urging clearer, enumerated due‑process protections before a receivership would be imposed and noting a receivership can ‘‘have pretty drastic ability to encumber the property.’’ Committee members asked about the record that would accompany a court action; sponsor witnesses said the bill contemplates the court will consider the enforcement history (affidavits and prior agency communications) when the case is filed.

Technical edits and next steps Sponsor testimony and stakeholders identified a package of conceptual amendments that the sponsor said she would file, including the 30‑day mailed notice change, clarifying discretionary attorney‑fee language, and other conforming edits. No committee vote was recorded at the hearing; the sponsor closed by thanking the committee and noting the bill’s use would be limited to extreme cases.

Ending: The committee took testimony from local governments, tenants’ advocates and landlord representatives and closed the hearing on AB211 without action recorded in the transcript.