Nevada committee hears bill to allow court-ordered easement relocations, clarify mortgage modification priorities

Assembly members heard testimony on Assembly Bill 192 on procedural changes for real property law, including a statute to permit court-ordered relocations of some easements and a separate statute that would protect lenders and borrowers who modify mortgages.

The bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Shay Backus, said AB 192 would adopt model uniform acts and update Nevada law. “ULC was established in 1892 to provide states with nonpartisan, well conceived, and well drafted legislation,” Backus said. She told the committee she serves as a Nevada commissioner to the Uniform Law Commission and introduced the bill’s co-presenters.

Supporters told the committee the measure combines two uniform acts. The portion labeled the Uniform Easement Relocation Act (UERA) would appear in sections 2–32 of the bill and allow a property owner burdened by an easement to ask a court to relocate that easement after the court makes statutory findings. Michael Buckley of Fenimore Law, who described the bill’s structure, told members: “Section 22 is the basic section that it permits the relocation of an easement and it also states which easements cannot be relocated, which includes public easements and, public utility easements and conservation easements.” Buckley also noted the drafts remove common-interest communities governed by NRS 116 from the act’s scope and add definitions for public entities and public roads.

Professor John Levitt, a Uniform Law Commission reporter participating by Zoom, said the UERA fills a gap left after a Nevada Supreme Court decision limited how the restatement third of servitudes applied in this state. Levitt explained the act would let courts relocate an easement to preserve the easement holder’s functional benefit while enabling productive use of the servient estate.

The mortgage portion of the bill, described by Buckley as the Uniform Mortgage Modification Act (sections 33–50), would create safe harbors for common loan modifications that otherwise can affect lien priority. “Section 48 is the key section of this bill,” Buckley said, explaining the measure lists ten safe-harbor modifications — such as extension of maturity, interest-rate reduction, capitalization of unpaid interest, forbearance, or escrow adjustments — that would not alter a mortgage’s priority so long as they meet the act’s requirements.

County and utility representatives spoke with questions and reservations about certain definitions and public-easement carve-outs. Jeff Rogan, representing Clark County, urged caution about applying the relocation process to government-held easements used by the public. “Our easements are generally intended for use by the public, as mentioned, roadways and sidewalks, but they also might be drainage ditches that are intended to make sure that your neighborhoods don't flood,” Rogan said, adding that Nevada already has a public vacating process under NRS chapter 278 and a public-comment opportunity that should be preserved.

Other stakeholders including AT&T and Cox Communications testified in a neutral posture to allow more review of how the bill’s public-utility definitions would affect communications easements used for lines and towers.

The bill’s presenters said they have prepared a friendly amendment to clarify definitions and to otherwise exclude public utility and municipal easements from involuntary relocation, while retaining a court process for disputes. They also said the relocation remedy requires a civil action and a court’s explicit findings before an easement may be moved, and that relocation costs are allocated to the party seeking the change subject to court order. The presenters noted that the Uniform Conservation Easement Act already exists in Nevada law, and the draft uses that statute’s definition of a conservation easement.

No vote was taken during the hearing. The sponsor closed by thanking stakeholders and asking the committee to advance AB 192 for further consideration.