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