Revises provisions governing landlords and tenants. (BDR 10-166)
AB 121 revises Nevada landlord-tenant law in several ways aimed at increasing transparency and limiting certain rental-related charges. The bill requires landlords to present rent as a single total figure that includes mandatory fees, rather than separating base rent from required add-on charges, and prohibits charging more than that listed total. It also allows limited utility pass-throughs for certain electric, natural gas, or water charges when direct utility billing is not possible, but only if the rental agreement clearly discloses the arrangement with specified notice language.
The bill also regulates how tenants can pay rent and fees. Landlords must offer at least one payment method that does not require a fee or disclosure of bank account information, and if they use an online portal, they cannot charge tenants more than the portal operator charges the landlord. Any such portal fee must be separately identified in the lease. In addition, landlords must provide a copy of the written rental agreement to a prospective tenant upon request, and they must refund certain application-related fees if the unit is rented to someone else and the landlord did not perform the work for which the fee was collected. The bill also bars application, credit-report, and background-check fees for minors in the household of a prospective tenant.
AB 121 amends NRS 118A.200 and adds new provisions to Chapter 118A governing residential rentals. It changes lease disclosure requirements, limits the structure and collection of rent and payment-processing fees, creates a refund obligation for certain unused application fees, and authorizes tenants to sue for violations involving rent-listing and overcharging rules. Courts may award damages, equitable relief, costs, attorney’s fees, and statutory damages for deceptive violations, giving tenants a direct enforcement mechanism against noncompliant landlords and agents.
The voting history suggests the bill had meaningful but not unanimous support. It passed the Assembly 27-15 and the Senate 16-5, indicating majority approval in both chambers but with a notable minority opposed. The available record does not include committee testimony, so the broader discussion record is limited; however, the final votes suggest the bill was generally viewed favorably as a tenant-protection and transparency measure, while still drawing concern from some lawmakers.
The main points of contention likely center on the bill’s restrictions on landlord fee practices and its new civil liability exposure. Landlords and property-management interests may object to limits on portal fees, the requirement to bundle mandatory charges into a single rent figure, the refund requirement for unused application-related fees, and the prohibition on charging minors for application, credit, or background checks. Tenant advocates, by contrast, would likely support these provisions as protections against hidden fees, misleading lease terms, and nonrefundable charges. The bill’s enforcement provisions, including attorney’s fees and statutory damages for deceptive violations, are also likely to be a focal point of disagreement.