BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
AB 1293 (Bloom)
As Amended April 23, 2013
Hearing Date: June 25, 2013
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
BCP
SUBJECT
Courts
DESCRIPTION
This bill would create a new $40 fee for requests of special
notice filed in probate proceedings, including proceedings
involving decedents' estates, conservatorships, guardianships,
and trusts.
BACKGROUND
Over the past five years, California's judicial branch has
experienced ongoing budget reductions of $535 million and has
diverted around $1 billion in courthouse construction funds to
support court operations. Those catastrophic budget reductions
have crippled California's court system by, among other things,
forcing the closure of courts and self-help centers, which has
resulted in delayed access to justice for a large number of
Californians.
In response to those budget reductions, the Judicial Council
reviewed potential cost savings and efficiencies that could be
implemented to allow the courts to function with fewer
resources. One of the results of that effort was the
development of 17 legislative proposals for trial court
operational efficiencies, cost savings, and new revenue. A
report on those proposals detailed the process by which the
proposals were generated as follows:
Proposals for efficiencies, costs savings, and new revenue
were initially solicited from presiding judges and court
(more)
AB 1293 (Bloom)
Page 2 of ?
executive officers. Submissions were received and initially
compiled by the AOC Finance staff. The proposals were
forwarded to the Office of Governmental Affairs to
coordinate the next steps. The chairs of the Trial Court
Presiding Judges Advisory Committee and the Court Executives
Advisory Committee each appointed 7 members for a 14-person
[Presiding Judge (PJ) / Court Executive Officer [CEO]) Trial
Court Efficiencies Working Group. The matrix of proposals
was revised and circulated to the group. Additional
proposals were added as they were received, from whomever
they were received. The working group met three times by
conference call, reviewing each of the proposals submitted.
The working group recommended that roughly one-half of those
proposals be forwarded for consideration for Judicial
Council sponsorship.
In the meantime, at the direction of the chair of the
Executive and Planning Committee and the chair of [the
Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee (PCLC)], the
chairs of most of the council's subject matter advisory
committees, the Open Courts Coalition, and the president of
the California Judges Association were asked to designate
members to participate on an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on
Court Efficiencies, Cost Savings, and New Revenue. The ad
hoc committee was created to ensure that all of the
proposals could be acted on timely, while retaining for the
council the benefit of the expertise of the various advisory
committees. The Ad Hoc Advisory Committee met by conference
call four times to review the proposals recommended by the
PJ/CEO Trial Court Efficiencies Working Group. The advisory
committee further winnowed the proposals for recommendation
to the PCLC for council sponsorship. This process resulted
in 24 proposals for statutory change being forwarded to PCLC
for consideration for council sponsorship. PCLC, under the
authority expressly delegated to it for these purposes in
December 2011, approved 17 of those proposals for council
sponsorship. (Judicial Council of Cal., Policy Coordination
and Liaison Com. Rep., Judicial Council Legislative
Priorities: 2013 (Dec. 14, 2012)
[as of June 20, 2013] pp. 3-4.)
Of those 17 proposals, eleven were included in both the
Governor's Proposed 2013-14 Budget and the May Revise. The
Senate Budget Committee recommended adopting eight of those
proposals, while the Assembly Budget Committee recommended
AB 1293 (Bloom)
Page 3 of ?
adopting four. The Budget Conference Committee adopted the
Assembly's recommendations, thus, four of the 17 proposals were
included in the 2013-14 Budget.
Accordingly, this bill, sponsored by the Judicial Council of
California, seeks to enact one of the 17 proposals that was not
included in the final 2013-14 Budget. Specifically, this bill
would add a new probate fee of $40 for the filing of a request
for special notice in proceedings regarding a decedent's estate,
guardianship, conservatorship, or trust. That filing fee seeks
to compensate courts for the costs involved in processing these
special notices.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that any person interested in a proceeding
for the administration of a decedent's estate, whether a
devisee, heir, creditor, or beneficiary under a trust, may file
with the court clerk a written request for special notice. That
special notice may be requested for one or more of the
following: (1) petitions filed in the administration
proceeding; (2) inventories and appraisals of property in the
estate; (3) objections to an appraisal; (4) accounts of a
personal representative; or (5) reports of status of
administration. (Prob. Code Sec. 1250.)
Existing law , in a proceeding concerning a conservatorship or
guardianship, allows a ward, if over 14 years of age or the
conservatee, the spouse of the ward or the spouse or domestic
partner of the conservatee, any relative or creditor of the ward
or conservatee, or any other interested person to file with the
court clerk a written request for special notice. That special
notice may be requested for any one or more of the following:
(1) petitions filed in the guardianship or conservatorship
proceeding; (2) inventories and appraisals of property in the
estate; (3) accounts of the guardian or conservator; or (4)
proceedings for the final termination of the guardianship or
conservatorship proceeding. (Prob. Code Sec. 2700.)
Existing law , in proceedings involving a trust, allows a
beneficiary or creditor to file with the court clerk a written
request for special notice of the filing of petitions regarding
the trust. (Prob. Code Sec. 17204.)
This bill would provide that the filing fee for a request for
special notice in a decedent's estate, guardianship,
AB 1293 (Bloom)
Page 4 of ?
conservatorship or trust proceeding is $40.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
AB 1293 will assist the judicial branch, especially the
trial courts, in implementing efficiencies and cost-recovery
measures during this era of significantly decreased general
fund support for the courts. From fiscal year 2007-08 to
the current year, according to the State Legislative
Analyst's office, state General Fund share of the entire
judicial branch budget fell from 56 [percent] to just 20
[percent]. Last year alone, state General Fund support for
the judicial branch was reduced by $544 million.
. . .
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.
The author further notes that AB 1293 would add a $40 fee for
the filing of a request for special notice in decedents' estate,
guardianship, conservatorship, or trust proceedings to help
courts cover their costs incurred.
2. Codifying a new filing fee for special notice
This bill would create a new $40 filing fee for requests for
special notice filed by interested persons in proceedings for
the administration of a decedent's estate, conservatorships or
guardianships, or trusts. Those requests for special notice
essentially require a person filing certain documents to provide
notice of the filing of those documents to the requesting party.
Although the notice is not provided by the court, the author
asserts that the proposed fee would cover court costs incurred
to ensure the proper service of notices and other documents,
and, if notice has not been given, the cost of postponing
hearings so that proper notice can be given to the requesting
parties.
Regarding the fiscal impact of the fee on the courts, the
AB 1293 (Bloom)
Page 5 of ?
above-cited Judicial Council report noted that: "This proposal
would result in new revenue to the courts of $190,159. Using
data from three courts, [Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC)] staff estimated that 5.63 percent of probate filings
involve a request for special notice, for a total of 2,377
cases (5.63 percent of 42,220 cases). Because the data was
limited, and because, in many instances, there are multiple
requests for special notice, the resulting revenue number was
multiplied by 2, yielding potential revenue of $190,159."
(Judicial Council of Cal., Policy Coordination and Liaison
Com. Rep., Judicial Council Legislative Priorities: 2013 (Dec.
14, 2012)
[as
of June 20, 2013] p. 26.)
Staff notes that, as stated above by the author, all parties
would prefer not to increase fees, but, the significant
reduction in funding for the Judicial branch places courts in an
untenable position. Regarding the impact of those cuts, a
recent survey by the Trial Court Presiding Judges' Advisory
Committee found, among other things, that:
at least 53 courthouses have been closed statewide, but that
number will increase to 60 if Los Angeles closes another
seven;
at least 175 courtrooms have been closed statewide;
31 counties have reduced the hours their public windows are
open;
at least 38 counties have reduced their self-help services;
and
at least 28 counties have stopped providing court reporter
services in at least one case type; and at least 11 counties
are unable to process domestic violence temporary restraining
orders the same day they are filed.
It should also be noted that as a result of the recent actions
taken in the Budget Conference Committee, the 2013-14 State
Budget includes an additional $63 million for the judicial
branch, but, even after that additional funding, trial courts
face prior and on-going reductions of $415 million.
3. Concerns about turning courts into a fee-for-service
institution
AB 1293 (Bloom)
Page 6 of ?
As a matter of public policy, it is important to consider the
impact of any new fee affecting the ability for Californians to
access justice. Although court user fees have been used to
increase revenue to some extent in recent years, there has been
increasing concern that further reliance on those fees will turn
the courts into a fee-for-service institution.
While most parties agree that trial courts are currently in
desperate need of additional funding to prevent further closures
and delays in access to justice, it is unclear whether the
proposed $40 fee will continue to be necessary if the Judicial
branch is successful in seeking additional funds in upcoming
budget years. Given the general concerns about turning the
courts into a fee-for-service institution, and the author's
statement that no party actually wants to increase fees, the
following amendment is suggested to add a 5-year sunset to the
proposed fee. That sunset would allow the Legislature to review
the continued need for the fee in light of any changes in trial
court funding.
Suggested amendment:
Add five year sunset
Support : None Known
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Judicial Council of California
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : None Known
Prior Vote :
Assembly Committee on Judiciary (Ayes 6, Noes 3)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 46, Noes 30)
**************
AB 1293 (Bloom)
Page 7 of ?