Revises provisions relating to certain debt. (BDR 52-599)
AB 250 creates a new affirmative defense of “coerced debt” in civil lawsuits to collect unsecured consumer debt. A debtor sued for collection may claim the debt was incurred through fraud, duress, intimidation, threats, or undue influence, but only if the debt arose in the context of sex trafficking or domestic violence as defined in the bill. To raise the defense, the debtor must file a sworn written attestation describing the debt and the coercive circumstances, along with supporting documentation such as a police report, FTC identity theft report, or a domestic violence protection order or related court record. If disclosure of the alleged coercer’s identity would likely cause abuse, the debtor may submit a sworn statement instead.
If a court finds the debt is coerced debt, it must order the creditor to stop collection efforts and, where applicable, correct consumer credit reports or similar records to reflect that status. The bill also allows the creditor to bring in the person alleged to have coerced the debt, or amend its complaint to assert a claim against that person, and it allows the debtor to recover attorney’s fees and costs from the coercing person, not from the creditor. The bill defines “coerced debt,” excludes certain credit instruments from the unsecured consumer debt definition, and applies only to actions filed on or after October 1, 2025.
AB 250 also makes a narrower change to Nevada’s criminal bad-check statute. For checks or drafts that are “credit instruments,” the bill deems them presented in the usual course of business if they are presented within two years of issuance, which affects when intent to defraud and knowledge of insufficient funds may be presumed in criminal cases involving bad checks. That change takes effect immediately and applies to credit instruments signed before, on, or after the effective date.
The bill’s overall impact is to add a victim-protection mechanism to Nevada debt-collection law, especially for survivors of domestic violence and sex trafficking, while also adjusting one evidentiary presumption in the criminal insufficient-funds check statute. It creates new procedural requirements for asserting the defense and new obligations for courts and creditors when coerced debt is established, while preserving creditors’ ability to pursue the actual coercer if identifiable.
The general sentiment appears strongly favorable. The bill passed the Assembly 33-9 and the Senate 21-0, indicating broad bipartisan support in the Senate and substantial support in the Assembly. No committee transcript opposition is provided, but the voting history suggests the measure was viewed as a targeted consumer and survivor-protection bill rather than a major controversial overhaul.
AB 250 amends Nevada debt-collection law by adding a new affirmative defense in civil collection actions for unsecured consumer debt and by setting procedures, evidentiary requirements, and remedies for coerced debt claims. It also amends NRS 205.132 to expand the “usual course of business” presumption for certain credit instruments in bad-check prosecutions. The bill affects creditors, debt collectors, consumers, survivors of domestic violence and sex trafficking, courts, and, in some cases, third parties alleged to have coerced the debt.
The bill appears to have been received positively and with little visible opposition. It passed both chambers comfortably, including unanimous Senate approval, suggesting broad agreement with its consumer-protection and survivor-centered purpose. The vote pattern indicates support for helping victims of coercion avoid liability for debts incurred through abuse or trafficking while still allowing creditors to seek recovery from the actual wrongdoer.
The main potential points of contention are the scope and proof requirements for the coerced-debt defense. Creditors may be concerned about added litigation burdens, the possibility of abuse of the defense, and the need to correct credit reporting if a debt is found coerced. On the other hand, advocates for domestic violence and trafficking survivors are likely to support the bill’s protections, including the ability to withhold identifying information when disclosure could lead to abuse. The criminal-law amendment to the bad-check statute is narrower, but it could still draw attention from gaming or financial stakeholders because it changes timing rules for credit instruments.