Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coerced Debt Domestic Violence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nevada committee hears bill to shield domestic‑violence survivors from coerced debt
Summary
Assembly Bill 250 would let victims of economic abuse stop collection and request removal of coerced debt from credit reports by submitting documentation; bill drew broad support from victim‑advocacy groups and opposition from banks, collectors and credit reporting industry over burden and scope.
Assembly Member Heather Golding presented Assembly Bill 250 to the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor as a measure to create civil protections for people who incur debt through economic abuse, commonly called coerced debt. The bill would allow an alleged victim to give notice and supporting documentation to a creditor and to consumer reporting agencies, triggering an investigation and, if validated, stopping collection and removing the debt from consumer reports.
Supporters told the committee coerced debt is widespread and imposes long‑term harms. Serena Evans, policy director for the Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, said coerced debt is a common tactic abusers use to trap victims and that the 2022 reauthorization of the federal Violence Against Women Act recognized economic abuse as a form of domestic violence. She cited national survey figures presented to the committee: about 99% of survivors report economic abuse; roughly 52% report coerced or fraudulent debt; and the average coerced debt reported in studies is about $15,936. “There is no safety without economic security,” Evans said.
Peter Aldis, a staff attorney at Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, and Jonathan Norman of the Nevada Coalition of Legal Service Providers walked the committee through the bill’s two main parts: (1) a debt‑collection shield that stops collection and forbids sale/transfer of the debt while a dispute is pending; and (2) a credit‑reporting process requiring consumer reporting agencies to investigate notices and remove debts found to be coerced. Both witnesses emphasized the shield shifts the burden to the creditor to prove the debt is not coerced; creditors retain a remedy to pursue the perpetrator directly in court.
Proponents included domestic‑violence service providers, advocacy groups and survivors who described real cases of loan applications and credit cards opened without consent, and the long aftermath that blocked housing, employment and other basics. Multiple witnesses asked the committee to refine definitions and the required documentary showing — police report, court finding, or qualified third‑party affidavit were among examples discussed — so that victims are not placed at unreasonable evidentiary burdens but the process is not open to widespread misuse.
Opponents, including the Nevada Bankers Association, debt collectors and trade groups, urged the committee not to shift presumptive liability onto creditors and warned state action could conflict with federal consumer reporting law. Connor Kane of the Nevada Bankers Association called the bill “fundamentally flawed” as drafted and said banks are not the perpetrators; he and other opponents urged a focus on holding abusers accountable through criminal or targeted civil remedies rather than broad creditor liability. The Consumer Data Industry Association testified that the bill, as written, could conflict with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and undermine the accuracy of credit files.
Committee members pressed proponents and opponents on practical details: what counts as adequate documentation, whether an initial oral notice is sufficient to trigger a shield, how creditors recover payments already distributed (for example, rent paid to property owners), and whether survivors will have access to counsel to defend claims in court. Proponents said the bill is intended as a civil remedy to reduce long‑term harms to survivors even when criminal prosecution does not follow. Opponents warned of increased operational costs for creditors and potential market consequences.
The sponsor and proponents said they are continuing to work with stakeholders on amendments to tighten definitions, specify documentary requirements, and preserve creditor remedies while giving survivors an actionable path to relief. No final committee vote on AB 250 was recorded in this hearing.
Ending — next steps: Committee members and the bill sponsor indicated continued stakeholder negotiations. The committee kept the record open and the sponsor said she would work on amendments addressing creditor concerns while preserving the relief mechanism for survivors.
