BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1293
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 1293 (Bloom) - As Amended: April 23, 2013
SUBJECT : COURTS: PROBATE FEE
KEY ISSUE : TO HELP INCREASE NEEDED FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR THE
TRIAL COURTS, SHOULD A NEW FEE BE CREATED FOR A REQUEST FOR
SPECIAL NOTICE IN A PROBATE CASE?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This bill, sponsored by the Judicial Council, seeks to increase
revenue for the courts by creating a new probate fee.
Specifically, this bill creates a new $40 fee for requests of
special notice filed in probate proceedings, including
proceedings involving decedents' estates, conservatorships,
guardianships and trusts. These are requests made by interested
individuals to get copies of records of various petitions and
other documents, including inventories, appraisals and
accountings, filed with the court. While the parties, and not
the courts, are responsible for actually providing the requested
documents to the relevant individuals, the Judicial Council
believes that this new fee will help cover the courts' costs
incurred in ensuring that proper notice and other information
has been provided to all individuals requesting special notice
and that, if such information has not been provided, postponing
any relevant hearing. The Council estimates that this new fee
will result in nearly $200,000 in new revenue for the courts.
As amended, this bill is only one small piece of the Judicial
Council's efforts to increase resources for the courts. Several
provisions of the bill were removed due to strong opposition and
the Judicial Council is still looking for new ways to increase
funding, increase efficiencies and reduce expenditures. Given
the potential controversies that may arise in conjunction with
some of these proposals, the sponsor has agreed not to add any
provision to the bill without the Committee's prior approval and
the author has agreed to bring the bill back to this Committee
should it be amended, consistent with the Committee's rules.
AB 1293
Page 2
SUMMARY : Seeks to increase resources for the courts by creating
a new probate fee. Specifically, this bill adds a new $40 fee
for filing a request for special notice in a decedent's estate,
guardianship, conservatorship or trust proceeding. Provides
that the $40 fee is in addition to any other fee charged for a
paper filed concurrently with the request for special notice.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Allows for the filing, without an additional fee, of a request
for special notice in a proceeding concerning a decedent's
estate. Allows the requester, whether a devisee, heir,
creditor or trust beneficiary, in person or by attorney, to
request special notice of, among other things, petitions,
inventories, appraisals, accounts, and status reports.
(Probate Code Section 1250. Unless stated otherwise, all
further statutory references are to that code.)
2)Allows for the filing, without an additional fee, of a request
for special notice in a proceeding concerning a
conservatorship or guardianship. Allows the requester,
whether the ward, if over 14, the conservatee, the spouse of
the ward or conservatee, any relative or creditor of the ward
or conservatee or any other interested person, in person or by
attorney, to request special notice of, among other things,
petitions, inventories, appraisals, accounts, and final
termination proceedings. (Section 2700.)
3)Allows for the filing, without an additional fee, of a request
for special notice in a proceeding concerning a trust. Allows
a trust beneficiary or a creditor, in person or by attorney,
to request special notice of petitions regarding the trust.
(Section 17204.)
COMMENTS : This bill, sponsored by the Judicial Council, seeks
to increase revenue for the courts by creating a new probate
fee. In support of the bill, the author writes:
As we look forward to the coming year, the Governor's
proposed budget for FY 2013-2014 will allocate only 1% of
the General Fund-just one penny out of each dollar-to fund
the entire judicial branch.
In order to prevent catastrophic shutdowns of courts, a
AB 1293
Page 3
series of efficiencies and cost-recovery proposals have
been implemented, including increases in court user-fees
and fine assessments, and the diversion of over $1 billion
in statewide infrastructure and courthouse construction
funds to court operations.
Because of the challenging budget times in which we find
ourselves, and despite the fact that all parties - from the
court users themselves to the Chief Justice of California -
would prefer to not have to increase fees, we must bolster
the judicial branch as best we can with the most practical
solutions available. The trial courts are suffering from a
sharp decrease in funding.
Scarce Court Resources Must be Expended Prudently to Help Ensure
Justice for All . Historically, trial courts in California were
county entities, funded by the counties, but in 1997, after
significant problems came to light with the county-based court
funding model, the Legislature passed the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial
Court Funding Act, AB 233 (Escutia and Pringle), Ch. 850, Stats.
1997. Under that bill, the state assumed responsibility for
funding the courts and helping ensure equal access to a quality
judicial system statewide. After the state took over funding,
the courts received significant funding increases and
historically underfunded courts saw greater increases.
Unfortunately, the recession forced significant reductions in
state General Fund support for the courts, but "one-time" fixes,
backfills and new revenues has, to date, substantially spared
the court system the brunt of the General Fund reductions.
Even though trial courts have, to date, largely been spared the
bulk of the General Fund reductions, trial courts have taken
dramatic steps to address the budget cuts, including (1) closing
courthouses and courtrooms, some on selected days and others
completely; (2) laying off or furloughing employees; and (3)
reducing services, including substantial cuts to self-help and
family law facilitator assistance, and providing fewer court
reporters and court interpreters. While the Governor's 2013-14
budget does not propose any additional cuts to the trial courts
and includes restoration of a $418 million one-time General Fund
reduction made this past year, some of the one-time fixes are
set to expire. As a result, it is anticipated that courts will
be looking for additional ways to reduce expenditures, unless
there is an infusion of additional funds.
AB 1293
Page 4
New Fee On Request For Special Notice in Probate : This bill is
part of the Judicial Council's response to the judiciary's
budget cuts. As recently amended, this bill creates a new $40
fee for requests of special notice filed in probate proceedings,
including proceedings involving decedents' estates,
conservatorships, guardianships and trusts. These are requests
made by interested individuals to get copies of records of
various petitions and other documents, including inventories,
appraisals and accountings filed with the court. This allows
interested third parties to follow developments in a particular
probate matter. While the parties, and not the courts, are
responsible for actually providing the requested documents to
the relevant individuals, the Judicial Council believes that
this new fee will help cover the courts' costs incurred in
ensuring that proper notice and other information has been given
to all individuals requesting special notice and that, if such
information has not been given, postponing any relevant hearing.
The Council estimates that this new fee will result in nearly
$200,000 in new revenue for the courts.
As amended, this bill is only one small piece of the Judicial
Council's efforts to increase funding for the courts. The bill
originally contained many other provisions, including efforts to
limit audits of the judiciary, as well as redirect certain funds
from the counties to the courts. Opposition to these provisions
has been raised by labor organizations and the counties. The
author and the sponsor are still attempting to resolve some of
the concerns, especially with the counties. Given the potential
controversies that may arise in conjunction with some of the
proposals, the sponsor has agreed not to add any provision to
the bill without the Committee's approval and the author has
agreed to bring the bill back to this Committee should it be
amended, consistent with the Committee's rules.
This Bill Just One Part of the Judicial Council's Operational
Efficiencies, Cost Savings and Revenue Proposals : In December
2012, the Judicial Council voted to support 17 "operational
efficiencies, cost savings, and revenue generating proposals."
Only six of those proposals had been included in this bill,
though the bill, as amended, now includes only one of those
proposals. The Governor is proposing to implement the remaining
11 proposals as part of the budget process. These include
proposals to:
1. Make it easier to collect court-ordered debt by making
AB 1293
Page 5
it easier to use the Franchise Tax Board and State
Controller's Office intercept programs.
2. Stop destroying marijuana arrest, charge and conviction
records.
3. Limit preliminary hearing transcripts that must be
provided to attorneys from all felony cases to just
homicide cases.
4. Limit reimbursement required of parents for
court-appointed dependency counsel.
5. Increase, from $20 to $50, the fee for exemplification
of a record.
6. Increase, from $0.50 a page to $1.00 a page, the cost
for copies of court records.
7. Charge a new $10 fee for each file name search
requested, except to a party requesting a copy of his or
her case file.
8. Increase the fee for mailing claims in small claims
cases from $10 to $15.
9. Charge an administrative fee for a request for a
deferral of entry of judgment, up to $500 for felonies and
$300 for misdemeanors.
10.Impose a $10 administrative assessment for every
conviction under the Vehicle Code, not just subsequent
convictions.
11.Limit trials by written declaration for infractions under
the Vehicle Code.
On April 3, 2013, the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on
Public Safety voted to approve just three of those proposals -
items 1, 5 and 8. It is possible that additional provisions
could be added during the budget process.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Judicial Council (sponsor)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
AB 1293
Page 6