BILL ANALYSIS AB 2767 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 13, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mike Feuer, Chair AB 2767 (Committee on Judiciary) - As Amended: April 7, 2010 PROPOSED CONSENT SUBJECT : CIVIL LAW: OMNIBUS KEY ISSUE : SHOULD VARIOUS NON-CONTROVERSIAL CHANGES BE MADE TO THE CALIFORNIA CODES? FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal. SYNOPSIS This non-controversial committee bill is the Assembly Judiciary Committee's omnibus civil law bill. In order to be included in the bill, each provision must be non-controversial and not so substantive as to be more appropriate for a stand-alone bill. Furthermore, if a non-controversial provision later becomes controversial, that provision will be removed from the bill. This bill enacts assorted changes to various sections of the California Codes. These changes include (1) clarifying the disposition of unclaimed victim restitution money held by the superior court; (2) making various code revisions necessitated by trial court restructuring; (3) clarifying the Legislature's intent to allow copying, as well as inspection, of paternity files under certain conditions in family law cases; (4) correcting inadvertent drafting errors or omissions arising from recent legislation; and (5) making other technical and clarifying changes. The bill is supported by the Judicial Council and has no known opposition. SUMMARY : Makes several non-controversial and clarifying changes to the codes. Specifically, this bill : 1)Corrects a drafting error in AB 1046 (Stats. 2009) that specifies the wrong date on which the Judicial Council is first required to submit to the Legislature (and then every three years thereafter) the amount by which the dollar amounts of homestead exemptions in effect immediately before that date may be increased, and take effect if subsequently approved by the Legislature. AB 2767 Page 2 2)Requires any money representing restitution collected on behalf of victims that remains unclaimed for three years, even after published notice has been made, to be deposited either into the State Restitution Fund exclusively for the purposes of providing victim services or into the general fund of a county that administers a victim services program exclusively for the provision of victim services. 3)Revises and updates code references made obsolete by trial court restructuring, in addition to making several technical revisions also relating to trial court restructuring. These provisions address subjects such as municipal court marshals, municipal court bank accounts, interest on deposits of bail, and compensation of court appointed experts, interpreters and translators. 4)Corrects an inadvertent drafting omission in SB 539 (Stats. 2007) that failed to make a corresponding change to the interest rate on late payments to the State Court Construction Penalty from 1 percent per month to the Local Agency Investment Fund rate (LAIF rate). 5)Clarifies that "inspection" of confidential paternity files by parties and, with written consent, their attorneys and agents of attorneys, includes both inspection and copying of the files, as provided. 6)Corrects a drafting error in AB 233 (Stats. 2009) that caused the inadvertent yet significant omission of the word "not" from provisions intended to prohibit the secretary, treasurer, or chief financial officer of a nonprofit religious corporation from serving concurrently as the president or chair of the board of the corporation. EXISTING LAW: 1)Provides that on April 1, 2010, and at each three-year interval ending on April 1 thereafter, the Judicial Council shall submit to the Legislature the amount by which the dollar amounts of homestead exemptions in effect immediately before that date may be increased as provided in subdivision (d). (Code of Civil Procedure Section 704.730(c).) 2)Provides that, except as otherwise provided by law, any money, AB 2767 Page 3 excluding restitution to victims, that has been deposited with a superior court, or that a superior court is holding in trust for the lawful owner, in a court bank account or in a court trust account in a county treasury, that remains unclaimed for three years shall become the property of the superior court if, after published notice pursuant to this section, the money is not claimed or no verified complaint is filed and served. (Gov. Code 68084.1(a).) 3)Pursuant to the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act, requires the state rather than counties to be responsible for trial court operations, necessitating significant trial court restructuring. (Gov. Code Sections 77000 to 77655.) 4)Pursuant to Proposition 220, approved by the voters in 1998, permits the municipal and superior courts in each county to unify, also necessitating significant trial court restructuring. 5)Requires the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) to determine whether any provisions of law are obsolete as a result of enactment of the Trial Court Interpreter Employment Protection and Governance Act, the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 (Chapter 850 of the Statutes of 1997), or the implementation of trial court unification. Also requires the CLRC to recommend to the Legislature any amendments to remove those obsolete provisions and report its recommendations to the Legislature, including any proposed statutory changes. (Gov. Code 71674.) 6)Provides that, upon receipt of any delinquent payment required by law to be paid to the State Court Facilities Construction Fund, the Controller shall calculate a penalty on any delinquent payment by multiplying the amount of the delinquent payment at a daily rate equivalent to 1 1/2 percent per month for the number of days the payment is delinquent. Further provides that these penalty amounts shall be paid by the county to the Controller no later than 45 days after the end of the month in which the penalty was calculated, and that all money received by the Controller under this section shall be deposited in the State Court Facilities Construction Fund. (Gov. Code 70377(b) and (c).) 7)Provides that paternity cases may be held in closed court and that paternity files are confidential, subject to inspection AB 2767 Page 4 by the parties to the action, their attorneys, and authorized agents of the attorneys with written consent. (Family Code Section 7643.) 8)Provides that any number of offices of a nonprofit religious corporation may be held by the same person unless the articles or bylaws provide otherwise, except that the secretary, the treasurer, or the chief financial officer may serve concurrently as the president or chair of the board. (Corporations Code Section 9213.) COMMENTS : This non-controversial committee bill is the Assembly Judiciary Committee's omnibus civil law bill. In order to be included in the bill, each provision must be non-controversial and not so substantive as to be more appropriate for a stand-alone bill. Furthermore, if a non-controversial provision later becomes controversial, that provision will be removed from the bill. The bill corrects a drafting error in AB 1046 (2009). This bill would correct a drafting error contained in AB 1046 (Anderson) Ch. 499, Stats. 2009, a bill passed by this Committee on consent last year. AB 1046 currently requires the Judicial Council to submit to the Legislature the dollar amounts for the first potential increase in the homestead exemption amounts on April 1, 2010, and then every three years thereafter. However, AB 1046 only became effective on January 1, 2010, which is the same date that the new increases to the homestead exemption mandated in the bill took effect. According to the author of AB 1046, the underlying legislative scheme was not designed to require the Judicial Council to conduct a review of the homestead exemption amounts and report to the Legislature regarding these amounts just three months after the new increases in this exemption became law, and that the current requirement is simply the result of a drafting error. Instead, AB 1046 should have specified the correct date of April 1, 2013. This bill would fix that error and avoid the need for the Judicial Council to submit an unnecessary report to the Legislature. This bill clarifies the disposition of unclaimed victim restitution money held by the superior court. This bill would require courts to deposit any unclaimed victim restitution money that they have been holding for a minimum of three years into either the State Restitution Fund or into the county general fund to be used by a local agency for purposes of victim AB 2767 Page 5 services. Due to a drafting oversight, superior courts lack the necessary clarity to process unclaimed victim restitution, and in many cases, this results in money being unavailable for any purpose. This bill would clarify statute and provide superior courts with the necessary direction to process unclaimed victim restitution. This bill makes various technical changes necessitated by trial court restructuring. This bill would revise and update code references made obsolete by trial court restructuring, in addition to making several technical revisions relating to trial court restructuring. Specifically, this bill amends Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1085 and 1103; Evidence Code Sections 731, 752, and 753; Gov. Code Sections 53647.5, 53679, 68092, and 71601; Penal Code Section 13510; and relocates an existing provision to new Gov. Code Section 27473. These code sections address subjects such as municipal court marshals, municipal court bank accounts, interest on deposits of bail, and compensation of court appointed experts, interpreters and translators, among other things. The California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) proposes these revisions in response to legislative directive to remove and clarify statutes made obsolete by trial court restructuring. The author contends that these revisions will help prevent confusion and disputes, potentially reduce litigation expenses, and conserve judicial resources. This bill addresses an oversight in SB 539 (2007). This bill would create uniformity in the law by changing the interest rate on late payments to the State Court Construction Penalty from 1 percent per month to the Local Agency Investment Fund rate (LAIF rate). This is necessary to address an oversight revealed after implementation of SB 539 (Margett), Ch. 435, Stats. 2007. That bill successfully changed the penalty interest rate charged for late remittance of court fines (pursuant to Gov. Code Section 68085) from 1.5% to the LAIF rate, but inadvertently failed to make a corresponding change to the penalty interest rate on late remittance of State Court Construction Penalty payments. The oversight was first identified by the State Controller, who then contacted the State Association of County Auditors to inform them of this discrepancy in the law. The county auditors now propose to correct this oversight through the Omnibus bill. This bill clarifies the Legislature's intent to allow copying, AB 2767 Page 6 as well as inspection, of paternity files under certain conditions. In 2008, the Legislature passed AB 1679 (Evans) to amend Family Code Section 7643 to permit inspection of confidential paternity files by parties to the action, their attorneys, and with written consent, agents of the attorneys. The legislative history of AB 1679, as evidenced by the bill's background sheet and the sponsor's testimony in committee, reveals that the amendment was intended to permit inspection and copying of the files. However, there are reports that some court clerks have interpreted the word "inspection" literally and are allowing attorneys, attorney services or authorized persons only to "inspect" the paternity files, but not to copy the file for later reference. This bill would simply clarify that both inspection and copying of paternity files are permitted, as provided by Section 7643. This bill corrects a drafting error in AB 1233 (2009). This bill would enact a technical correction needed due to a drafting error in AB 1233 (Silva), Ch. 631, Stats. 2009, that produces an unwanted and inappropriate change in the law. AB 1233 amended Corporations Code Sections 5213 (pertaining to nonprofit public benefit corporations) and 9213 (pertaining to nonprofit religious corporations.) Both sections previously stated, "neither the secretary nor the chief financial officer may serve concurrently as the president or chairman of the board." As amended by AB 1233, Section 5213 correctly stated, "the secretary, the treasurer, or the chief financial officer may not serve concurrently as the president or chair of the board." (emphasis added.) An identical change was supposed to be made to Section 9213, but the word "not" was accidentally left out due to a drafting error. This bill would fix the inadvertent omission of the word "not" from Section 9213 and restore consistency and logic to the statute. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Judicial Council of California Opposition None on file Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 AB 2767 Page 7