BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1293|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1293
Author: Bloom (D)
Amended: 7/2/13 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 6/25/13
AYES: Evans, Corbett, Jackson, Leno, Monning
NOES: Walters, Anderson
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 46-30, 5/30/13 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Courts
SOURCE : Judicial Council of California
DIGEST : This bill establishes, until January 1, 2019, a
filing fee of $40 for a request for special notice, as
specified, and requires that this fee be in addition to any
other fee charged for a paper filed concurrently with a request
for special notice.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.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
CONTINUED
AB 1293
Page
2
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.
2.Allows a ward in a proceeding concerning a conservatorship or
guardianship, 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.
3.Allows a beneficiary or creditor, in proceedings involving a
trust, to file with the court clerk a written request for
special notice of the filing of petitions regarding the trust.
This bill:
1.Provides that the filing fee for a request for special notice
in a decedent's estate, guardianship, conservatorship or trust
proceeding is $40.
2.Contains a sunset date of January 1, 2019.
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
CONTINUED
AB 1293
Page
3
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
executive officers. Submissions were received and
initially compiled by the Administrative Office of the
County (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
CONTINUED
AB 1293
Page
4
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
adopting four. The Budget Conference Committee adopted the
Assembly's recommendations, thus, four of the 17 proposals were
included in the 2013-14 Budget.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/2/13)
Judicial Council of California (source)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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.
CONTINUED
AB 1293
Page
5
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 46-30, 5/30/13
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bloom, Blumenfield, Bocanegra,
Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon,
Campos, Chau, Chesbro, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Frazier,
Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Hall, Roger Hernández,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal, Medina, Mitchell, Mullin,
Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Pan, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Skinner,
Stone, Ting, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada
NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Chávez, Conway, Cooley, Dahle,
Donnelly, Fox, Beth Gaines, Gorell, Gray, Grove, Hagman,
Harkey, Jones, Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor, Melendez,
Morrell, Nestande, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk-Silva, Salas,
Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Holden, V. Manuel Pérez, John A. Pérez,
Vacancy
AL:nl 7/2/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED