Committee hears AB250 to give domestic‑violence survivors a civil remedy for coerced debt

Assemblymember Heather Golding opened testimony for AB250, saying the bill "gives victim survivors a path to break free from debt forced on them by their abusers." The proposal creates two primary remedies, presenters said: (1) a debt‑collection shield that halts collection efforts once a survivor provides notice and supporting documentation and (2) a process requiring consumer reporting agencies to investigate and remove debts that their investigation determines were ‘‘coerced debt’’ or the product of economic abuse.

Proponents described coerced debt as a common form of economic abuse. Serena Evans, policy director for the Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, cited national research and told the committee that coerced debt leaves long‑term harms: "There is no safety without economic security," Evans said, summarizing testimony from survivors and national studies. Peter Aldis, a staff attorney at Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, told the committee that current civil remedies are limited in practice and that many victims lack counsel in debt‑collection cases; he said the bill is designed to shift the initial burden to the creditor so courts can determine whether the debt was coerced.

Aldis explained the bill’s mechanics: the debtor (victim) serves a notice and supporting documentation — such as a police report, a court ruling or an affidavit from a certified third party — to halt collection and stop sale or further transfer of the debt. If the creditor disputes the claim, the creditor may ask a court to adjudicate the question or pursue the perpetrator. Section 2 would require consumer reporting agencies to investigate such notices and to remove debts from reports if the investigation substantiates coerced debt; if the agency’s investigation does not substantiate the claim, it must notify the consumer before continuing to report the debt.

Supporters included domestic‑violence service providers, legal‑aid groups, child‑advocacy organizations and the U.S. Defense State Liaison Office; Brianna Gallart, a survivor who testified by phone, described long‑term credit harm that continues to affect her ability to finance a vehicle and housing. Several service organizations said similar laws exist in other states and cited examples of harm experienced by survivors who discovered large debts only after accounts went to collection.

Opponents — including the Nevada Bankers Association, collector groups, credit unions and the Consumer Data Industry Association — warned that AB250 as drafted shifts the burden of proof to creditors and could increase litigation and costs for lenders and other creditors. Connor Kane of Curran Nevada (on behalf of the Nevada Bankers Association) said the bill "fundamentally shifts focus and liability to a creditor who is not at all involved in the criminal activity" and warned of narrower credit availability or higher costs for consumers if the risk to creditors rises. Credit‑reporting industry representatives also raised federal preemption concerns under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Witnesses and committee members discussed evidence standards and mechanics. Proponents said the bill requires documentation and offers creditors a court remedy to pursue perpetrators; opponents said the definition of coerced debt and the allowed documentation were too broad and risked manipulation. Supporters and some members of the committee said they are open to amendments and stakeholder negotiations to narrow definitions and provide procedural safeguards. No committee vote was taken during the hearing.

Ending: The hearing closed after extended public testimony from survivors, advocacy groups and financial stakeholders. Proponents said they will work with stakeholders to refine the bill; opponents said the measure needs tighter procedural and evidentiary safeguards before the committee acts.