BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2747
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2747 (Judiciary Committee)
As Amended August 19, 2014
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |53-19|(May 23, 2014) |SENATE: |23-12|(August 25, |
| | | | | |2014) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Makes various changes to the California codes as part of
the Judiciary Committee's civil omnibus bill. Specifically, this
bill , among other things:
1)Restores a civil penalty for a willful violation of notary public
standards of conduct that as the result of a drafting error was
inadvertently repealed.
2)Updates the Evidence Code to reflect the addition of two types of
evidentiary privilege that had inadvertently been omitted from the
list of all relationship-based privileged communications, and
corrects incorrect cross-references.
3)Removes specific references to domestic partners in the Probate
Code that became obsolete when spouses and domestic partners were
guaranteed the same rights and responsibilities under California
law.
4)Makes technical and conforming changes to statutory provisions and
statutory forms regarding claim of right to possession and
prejudgment claim of right to possession.
5)Corrects a drafting error in SB 120 (Lowenthal), Chapter 560,
Statutes of 2009, that was intended to cover all utility providers
but inadvertently failed to extend those provisions to one type of
special utility district.
6)Extends, for an additional five years, the sunset date for
provisions requiring a car rental company to be the agent for
service of process for claims against insured persons who reside
outside of the United States.
7)Repeals the requirement that a confidential marriage license may
AB 2747
Page 2
be used only in the county in which it was issued.
8)Exempts a probate referee from paying a filing fee for a request
for special notice when acting in his or her official capacity.
9)Removes obsolete provisions regarding personal bonds.
10)Deletes inappropriately broad reporting requirements
inadvertently assigned to the Judicial Council pursuant to the
study established by AB 900 (Buchanan), Chapter 354, Statutes of
2011, and instead limits the scope of the report to the effects of
AB 900 on the administration of justice.
11)Clarifies that residential leases having a security deposit
provision are not by virtue of that fact barred from being signed
electronically by the parties, if they so wish, under the Uniform
Electronic Transactions Act (UETA).
12)Adds bicycle motocross to the list of hazardous recreational
activities under Government Code Section 831.7.
13)Clarifies that the court's decision to grant a fee waiver in a
case involving a conservatorship or guardianship should be based
on the financial resources of the proposed conservatee or ward.
14)Makes other technical corrections and clarifying changes.
The Senate amendments :
1)Clarify that nothing in the case of Serrano v. Stefan Merli
Plastering Co., Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1014 shall be
construed to alter the standards by which a court acquires
personal jurisdiction over a nonparty to an action.
2)Delete from this bill certain provisions relating to community
property and service of notice to appear at trial.
3)Correct drafting errors within the prejudgment claim of right form
prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 415.46, and make
other technical corrections.
4)Insert appropriate cross-references in existing Probate Code
provisions of the bill related to fee waivers for certain
guardianship and conservatorship investigations.
AB 2747
Page 3
5)Insert double-jointing language to avoid chaptering-out conflict
with another bill.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee,
pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : This bill is the Assembly Judiciary Committee's omnibus
civil law bill. It incorporates over a dozen different proposals
submitted by various groups seeking to make technical, clarifying,
or other modest changes to civil law. In order to be included in
this bill, each provision must be not so substantive as to be more
appropriate for a stand-alone bill. The purpose of the omnibus bill
is to increase the efficiency of the legislative process, conserve
legislative resources, and eliminate the need to unnecessarily hear
a number of stand-alone bills that might otherwise have to be
introduced and heard separately through the legislative process.
Several of the individual proposals are briefly discussed below.
AB 2610 (Skinner), Chapter 562, Statutes of 2012, gives occupants in
foreclosed properties the right to file the Prejudgment Claim of
Right to Possession form (CP 10.5) at any time before judgment.
However, there was an unfortunate but significant legislative
oversight in that this bill failed to update the forms themselves to
reflect the underlying changes in the law. As a result, the
existing statutory forms continue to provide outdated and incorrect
information about the rights and procedural requirements that apply
to the people who are served with these forms under the new law
enacted by AB 2610. Because the forms are statutory, rather than
created by the Judicial Council, legislation is needed to update the
content of the forms.
This bill amends the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) Sections 415.46
and 1174.3 to update two statutory forms known as the Prejudgment
Claim of Right to Possession (CP 10.5), and the Claim of Right to
Possession (CP 10). The updates are necessary to conform the
statutory forms, which are often served upon occupants in foreclosed
properties, with the changes in the underlying law that were made
when AB 2610 was chaptered in 2012. Additionally, CCP Section
1174.25 is amended to provide an additional cross-reference to the
change in the law.
Public Resources Code Section 21189.2 currently requires the
Judicial Council to conduct a study and report to the Legislature,
on or before January 1, 2015, on the effects of [the bill], which
shall include, but not be limited to, a description of the benefits,
AB 2747
Page 4
costs, and detriments of the certification of leadership projects
pursuant to this chapter. (emphasis added.) According to the
Judicial Council, this study language was inadvertently written too
broadly, and deals with issues that are outside the Judicial
Council's expertise and areas of experience. This bill clarifies
and appropriately narrows the focus of the study to the impacts of
the act on the administration of justice, as well as extending the
deadline of the study to coincide with the new deadlines in the act
that were recently extended by SB 743 (Steinberg), Chapter 386,
Statutes of 2013.
SB 495 (Fuller), Chapter 305, Statutes of 2011, increased the
waiting period to retain unclaimed property (safe deposit box
contents) of no apparent commercial value from 18 months to 'not
less than seven years.' That bill also specified changes to the
language in CCP Section 1565, but did not include CCP Section 1501.5
which also referenced the retention time period. According to the
State Controller's Office, this was an oversight; accordingly, this
bill updates CCP Section 1501.5 to reflect the correct time of
retention and to be consistent with CCP Section 1565.
This bill amends Civil Code Section 1942.2, and Government Code
Section 60371 to correct an oversight stemming from the enactment of
SB 120. SB 120 changed the law regarding the notice that utility
districts must provide to tenants when the utilities are shutoff,
but through a legislative oversight, one type of utility district
was omitted from the scope of the bill - the type of special
district governed by Government Code Section 60371. Without this
proposal, all utility districts are subject to one rule (articulated
by SB 120), while a different rule (the pre-SB 120 rule) applies
only to Government Code Section 60371-specific special districts.
There is no public policy justification for continuing this
discrepancy that was created by legislative oversight.
This bill also restores consistency to the set of Evidence Code
Sections on evidentiary privilege and specifically privileged
communications by adding two types of evidentiary privilege to
Evidence Code Section 917 that are included throughout relevant
neighboring sections, but were inadvertently omitted from Evidence
Code Section 917 due to drafting error.
This bill also corrects a drafting error in AB 886 (Runner), Chapter
399, Statutes of 2007, that unintentionally removed a civil penalty
for a willful violation of notary public standards of conduct. The
statute previously provided for penalties of both willful and
AB 2747
Page 5
negligent conduct, but AB 886 neglected to retain the willful
penalties when recasting the code sections. According to the
Secretary of State, the drafting error has had the effect of tying
the hands of Administrative Law Judges who now only have the option
to classify these violations as negligent, which carries a lesser
penalty. As a result, some judges choose to assess no penalty
rather than downgrade a willful violation to the lower status of a
negligent act. This bill reinstates the prior $1,500 civil penalty
for willful violation of Government Code Section 8214.1 (d).
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334FN:
0005104