Revises provisions governing certain actions and proceedings relating to real property. (BDR 3-77)
AB 340 revises Nevada’s summary eviction laws by repealing the existing summary eviction procedures for noncommercial tenants who default on rent and for certain other unlawful detainer cases, and replacing them with reorganized procedures. The bill creates new notice, filing, service, answer, hearing, and removal timelines for landlords seeking summary eviction for nonpayment of rent or for unlawful detainer under specified statutes. It also requires landlords to include more detailed information in affidavits of complaint, serve tenants with filed copies of the complaint and summons, and allows tenants 7 calendar days to answer before a hearing is held or a summary order may issue if no answer is filed.
The bill also makes related changes to Nevada’s eviction and property statutes. It updates service-of-process rules, appeal provisions, and post-eviction procedures for disputes over storage costs and the retrieval of essential personal property. It expands automatic sealing of eviction case files to actions brought under the new procedures, removes COVID-19-specific sealing language, and makes conforming changes across statutes governing abandoned property, foreclosure-related occupancy, and certain drug-related forfeiture and eviction remedies. The new provisions generally apply to summary eviction actions accruing on or after October 1, 2023.
AB 340 would substantially amend Chapter 40 of the Nevada Revised Statutes by repealing NRS 40.253 and 40.254 and replacing them with new sections 2 through 6.5, while also conforming cross-references throughout the eviction code and related property statutes. The bill changes the mechanics of summary eviction for residential rent defaults and certain unlawful detainer actions, including notice content, filing deadlines, tenant response deadlines, hearing requirements, and sheriff/constable removal procedures. It also affects statutes governing service of notices, appeals, abandoned property, foreclosure possession, and automatic sealing of eviction records, while preserving separate treatment for commercial tenants and certain mobile home and recreational vehicle lot tenants.
The bill appears to have been framed as a procedural overhaul rather than a major policy shift, with the text emphasizing reorganization, clarification, and conforming amendments. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or recorded support/opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the structure of the bill, the overall tone is neutral and administrative, with some tenant-protective features such as clearer notice requirements, an answer period, hearing rights, limits on refusal of rent, and automatic sealing in certain cases.
The main points of potential contention are the balance between landlord remedies and tenant due process, and the shortened but structured timelines for tenant responses and removal. Landlords may favor the bill’s streamlined summary eviction process, clearer filing rules, and continued ability to obtain quick relief when tenants do not answer, while tenant advocates may focus on whether the new procedures still move too quickly or whether the revised notice and filing requirements are sufficient to protect tenants from wrongful eviction. Additional tension may arise over the bill’s exceptions for commercial premises, mobile home and recreational vehicle lots, and workers affected by government shutdowns, as well as the automatic sealing rules and the limits on disputes over storage and personal property after eviction.