WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 250

Revises provisions relating to certain debt. (BDR 52-599)

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Natha Anderson and 7 co-sponsors

AB 250 lets debtors prove a debt was coerced by domestic violence or sex trafficking, halting collections and correcting credit if proven.

Approved by the Governor. Chapter 240.
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 250

AB 250 — Coerced Debt Relief (BDR 52-599) — Summary

Status: Enacted (approved by Governor and chaptered in 2025). Applies to actions filed on or after October 1, 2025. Sponsors: Assemblymember Heather Goulding et al.; Joint Sponsors Senators Lisa Krasner and John Steinbeck.

Purpose

AB 250 creates a statutory pathway for people who incurred unsecured consumer debt as a result of domestic violence or sex trafficking to defend against debt-collection lawsuits. The bill recognizes “coerced debt” as an affirmative defense in civil actions to collect qualifying unsecured consumer debt and prescribes how that defense is asserted and adjudicated.

Key provisions

  • Affirmative defense: In any civil action to collect an unsecured consumer debt (excluding certain gaming credit instruments under NRS 463.01467), a debtor may assert that the debt is a “coerced debt.”
  • Definition of “coerced debt”: An unsecured consumer debt (for personal, family or household use) incurred in the debtor’s name as a result of fraud, duress, intimidation, threat of force, undue influence or similar conduct, where the debtor is a victim of:
    • sex trafficking (NRS 201.300), or
    • domestic violence by a spouse/former spouse, person with a child in common, close relative, cohabitant (current or former), or dating partner.
  • Required evidence to assert the defense: A written attestation identifying the debt, describing the circumstances and facts supporting the claim, (generally) identifying the alleged coercer, and a copy of at least one of:
    • a police report or investigative report filed with law enforcement;
    • an FTC identity-theft report; or
    • a temporary/extended protection order or other court record relevant to the claim.
    • If disclosure of the coercer likely would cause abuse, the debtor may file a sworn statement instead of identifying the coercer.
  • Court actions if coerced debt is proven: If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the debt is coerced, the court must order the creditor to immediately cease collection efforts and, where applicable, take reasonable steps to correct consumer credit reports or similar records.
  • Creditor rights: Creditors may implead or amend to join third parties who may be liable for the coerced debt (e.g., the coercer).
  • Remedies: A debtor may recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs from the person who coerced the debt (not from the creditor).
  • Exclusions and clarifications:
    • “Unsecured consumer debt” excludes certain gaming credit instruments (per NRS 463.01467).
    • The bill revises NRS 205.132 (related to presumption of intent to defraud for bad checks), deeming a credit instrument presented within 2 years as presented in the “usual course of business” for that presumption.
  • Effective scope: Applies to civil actions filed on or after October 1, 2025.

Who is affected

  • Debtors who are survivors of domestic violence or sex trafficking: gain a statutory defense to certain debts and a route to correct credit records.
  • Creditors, collection agencies, and consumer-reporting agencies: face new procedural obligations and potential court-ordered cessation of collection and reporting corrections when coerced debt is established.
  • Alleged coercers: may be joined in litigation and may be liable for attorney’s fees and costs.

Procedure & timeline highlights

  • Debtor must supply attestation + supporting documentation to court when asserting the defense.
  • Court determines coerced debt by preponderance of evidence.
  • The statutory regime applies prospectively to actions filed on/after Oct. 1, 2025.

Support & opposition (summary)

  • Supporters (survivor advocates, domestic-violence organizations) emphasize relief for victims of economic abuse and removal of a barrier to leaving abusive relationships.
  • Critics (creditor trade groups, some business chambers, and consumer-data industry representatives) raised concerns about documentary standards, potential for frivolous claims, burdens on creditors/reporting accuracy, and interactions with existing credit-liability rules.

Practical implications / considerations

  • Provides an evidence-based, court-mediated mechanism to protect survivors from lasting financial harm caused by coercive partners.
  • Introduces new litigation and administrative pathways (for creditors and credit-reporting entities) to resolve disputes about whether debt is coerced.
  • Likely increases early court engagement in contested collection suits and may shift some collection efforts toward third-party recovery against coercers where liability exists.

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

Sign in to ask a question.