WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 283

Relating to: making certain child care expenditures eligible for the business development tax credit. (FE)

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Dave Armstrong and 16 co-sponsors

AB 283 shifts summary-eviction filing to landlords after notice, triggering hearings and due process for tenants; vetoed by governor on June 5, 2025.

Public hearing held
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 283

AB 283 — Summary Eviction Reform (BDR 3‑819)

Status: Vetoed by the Governor (June 5, 2025)
Introduced: February 25, 2025 (Assemblymember Carter) — enrolled and transmitted to Governor May 29, 2025

Purpose / Intent

AB 283 rewrites Nevada’s “summary eviction” procedures for most residential tenancies (non‑commercial), replacing the current outlier procedure that requires a tenant to initiate court action to obtain a hearing. The bill’s stated aim was to align Nevada with other states, strengthen tenants’ due‑process protections, and reduce immediate displacement by shifting the formal filing responsibility to landlords after notice periods expire.

Key provisions and changes

  • Repeals and reenacts Nevada summary‑eviction statutes for:
    • Non‑commercial tenants who default on rent; and
    • Tenants charged with unlawful detainer for reasons other than nonpayment.
  • Notice and filing order:
    • Landlord must serve a written notice requiring the tenant to pay past due rent or surrender the premises by close of business on the later of (a) the seventh judicial day after service, or (b) any longer federal notice period that applies.
    • If tenant does not comply, the landlord may file an affidavit of complaint for summary eviction with the justice court.
  • Court filing and service deadlines:
    • Affidavit must be filed no later than 30 calendar days after the notice period expires.
    • The landlord must serve the tenant a file‑stamped copy of the affidavit and a summons within a set period after filing (amendments increased a service window to 21 calendar days in the Senate amendment).
    • Landlord must file proof of service with the court; failure to file proof within 30 days can lead to dismissal.
  • Tenant response and hearing:
    • Tenant has 7 judicial days after service of the file‑stamped materials to file an answer.
    • If the tenant files an answer, the court must hold a hearing; if not, the court may order removal without a hearing under prescribed circumstances.
  • Automatic sealing:
    • Courts granting certain summary evictions must automatically seal the eviction case file under specified conditions (the bill removed COVID‑specific language and broadened sealing provisions).
  • Effective timing:
    • The statutory changes apply to summary‑eviction actions that accrue on or after October 1, 2025 (as enrolled).

Who is affected

  • Tenants: Gains a process where landlords must file to obtain an eviction hearing (intended to improve access to hearings and due process).
  • Landlords and property managers: New filing, service, proof‑of‑service and timing obligations; potential increased administrative cost and longer timelines.
  • Courts / justice courts: New filing and case‑management steps; potential change in workflow and caseload.
  • Public housing authorities (PHAs): Federal rules (e.g., HUD 30‑day notice requirements) may conflict with state timing; PHAs sought exemption and raised compliance concerns.

Legislative process & amendments

  • Passed Assembly and Senate (with Senate Amendment No. 609 and conceptual amendments addressing federal notice periods and extending certain service deadlines).
  • Multiple stakeholder submissions: supporters included legal aid groups, children’s advocacy and housing justice organizations; opponents included apartment associations, REALTORS®, PHAs and some landlord/property owner groups.
  • Final status: vetoed by the Governor on June 5, 2025.

Potential impacts / considerations

  • Supports proponents’ due‑process and public‑health arguments (reduce abrupt displacement of families, children).
  • Raises opponents’ concerns about increased costs, longer timelines for resolving some lease violations, added burdens on small landlords and courts, and conflict with federally governed housing programs.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.