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