Makes various changes relating to property. (BDR 10-623)
SB78A makes a broad set of changes to Nevada landlord-tenant law, focused primarily on rental fees, security deposits, eviction-related charges, and notice requirements. The bill revises the definition of “security deposit,” clarifies what counts as “normal wear,” and requires landlords to provide an itemized written accounting when returning a security deposit or surety bond. It also limits what landlords may charge prospective tenants, prohibits application and screening fees for minors in a household, and requires refunds of application-related fees when the landlord rents to someone else and does not perform the work for which the fee was collected.
The bill also requires written rental agreements to include a grace period for late rent, separate appendices explaining all fees and tenant rights, and advance notice before increasing fees, fines, or costs. It restricts rental agreements from imposing fees, fines, or costs unless they are expressly authorized by statute or are actual and reasonable, and it bars landlords from selling or reporting tenant debt to collections or credit agencies without first giving an itemized accounting and 30 days’ notice. Additional provisions address eviction fees, time limits for enforcement actions, notice when a landlord changes agents or property managers, service of eviction notices, and representation of landlords in small claims actions. The bill excludes manufactured homes and manufactured home parks from its amendatory provisions and states that existing rental agreements remain enforceable even if they conflict with the new rules.
SB78A would substantially amend Chapter 118A of the Nevada Revised Statutes by adding new tenant protections and tightening landlord disclosure and fee practices. It repeals the prior statutory definition of “security deposit” and replaces it with a new definition, while also revising related provisions governing deposit limits, deductions, accounting, and landlord burden of proof for damage claims. The bill would also modify eviction and collection procedures, including notice requirements, permissible service methods, and limits on when landlords may refer tenant balances to collections or credit reporting agencies. Its fiscal note indicates no effect on state or local government finances.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be tenant-protective and regulatory, with the bill designed to increase transparency and limit landlord-imposed charges. The structure and detail of the amendments suggest a policy effort to curb surprise fees, improve notice, and strengthen tenant defenses in disputes over deposits, late fees, and collections. No contrary public testimony or vote history is provided here, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s substantive direction.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s limits on landlord discretion and revenue, especially the restrictions on fees, fines, costs, application charges, late fees, and collection practices. Landlords may object to the requirement for detailed fee appendices, mandatory grace periods, advance notice before fee increases, and the burden of proving damage claims and actual repair costs. Another potential dispute is the prohibition on collecting certain screening fees for minors and the requirement to refund application-related fees when the landlord rents to another applicant. Tenant advocates would likely support these provisions, while landlord and property-management interests may view them as administratively burdensome and overly restrictive.