Nevada Assembly Bill AB17

Nevada 2025 Regular Session

• Refer: 11/6/24
• Introduced: 2/4/25
• Report Pass: 4/10/25
• Engrossed: 4/15/25
• Refer: 4/16/25
• Report Pass: 5/12/25
• Enrolled: 5/23/25
• Chaptered: 5/27/25
• Passed: 5/27/25

Caption

Revises provisions relating to writs of garnishment. (BDR 3-416)

Summary

AB 17 makes a narrow procedural change to Nevada’s garnishment laws. Under existing law, when the State of Nevada is named as a garnishee in a writ of garnishment, the writ must be served on the State Controller. This bill replaces that service requirement so that the writ must instead be served on the Division of Human Resource Management within the Department of Administration. The bill does not change the underlying standards for when a writ of garnishment may issue, the affidavit requirements, or the general rules governing garnishment and attachment. It preserves the existing priority rule that child support garnishments take first priority when multiple writs are served on the same garnishee. The measure becomes effective upon passage and approval.

Impact

AB 17 amends NRS 31.249, the statute governing writs of garnishment in aid of attachment, by updating the designated state office that receives service when the State of Nevada is the garnishee. The practical effect is to redirect service from the State Controller to the Division of Human Resource Management, likely aligning the statute with current administrative responsibilities for state payroll and wage-related matters. The bill affects creditors, courts, and state administrative offices involved in processing garnishment orders, but it does not alter substantive debtor protections or exemption rules.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and received unanimous support in both chambers, passing the Assembly 42-0 and the Senate 20-0. With no committee transcript available and no recorded opposition in the voting history, the overall sentiment suggests broad agreement that the change is technical and administrative rather than policy-driven.

Contention

There is no recorded substantive contention in the available materials. Because the bill only changes which state office is served with a writ of garnishment, any discussion would likely have centered on administrative efficiency, agency responsibility, or updating outdated statutory references rather than on the merits of garnishment law itself. The unanimous votes indicate no visible disagreement among legislators.