Revises provisions relating to fees collected by constables and sheriffs for certain services. (BDR 20-540)
SB210 revises Nevada law governing the fees that sheriffs and constables may charge for a wide range of civil and quasi-civil services. The bill increases many existing fee amounts, including charges for serving summonses and complaints, subpoenas, eviction notices, writs of restitution, attachments, executions, orders of sale, sheriff’s deeds, and mileage-based travel fees. It also raises the fee for a constable summoning a jury before a justice of the peace and increases the maximum mileage charge for unsuccessful service attempts by sheriffs and constables.
The bill primarily updates fee schedules in NRS 248.275 and NRS 258.125, affecting county sheriffs, constables, litigants, landlords and tenants in eviction matters, and parties in civil enforcement proceedings. It does not create new enforcement powers or new categories of service; instead, it adjusts compensation levels for existing services and preserves provisions requiring collected fees to be paid into county treasuries, subject to existing local ordinance exceptions and enterprise-fund accounting rules.
SB210 amends Nevada statutes governing sheriff and constable fees, increasing the amounts charged for service of process, eviction-related notices and writs, subpoenas, mileage, execution-related notices and sales, and related documents. The bill directly affects NRS 248.275 for sheriffs and NRS 258.125 for constables, and it raises both fixed service fees and mileage caps. As a result, parties who request or are responsible for paying these services—such as civil litigants, landlords, judgment creditors, and defendants in execution or eviction proceedings—may face higher costs, while county law enforcement offices receive increased fee revenue under the existing statutory collection framework.
The voting history suggests the bill was generally supported, with strong majorities in both chambers: 20-1 in the Senate and 38-4 in the Assembly. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the broad bipartisan margins indicate the measure was viewed as a routine fee update rather than a major policy change. The overall sentiment appears favorable, with only limited opposition.
The main point of contention is likely the cost increase to the public and to parties who must pay for sheriff and constable services, especially in eviction and civil enforcement contexts where fees are already significant. Opponents may have been concerned that higher process-serving and eviction-related charges would burden landlords, tenants, litigants, or judgment debtors, while supporters likely viewed the increases as necessary to align fees with current costs of service and travel. Because no committee transcript is available, the record does not identify specific speakers or detailed objections beyond the narrow floor opposition reflected in the votes.