BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2126|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2126
Author: Lieu (D), et al
Amended: 4/20/06 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 6/13/06
AYES: Dunn, Morrow, Escutia, Harman, Kuehl
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 5/4/06 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT : Enforcement of judgments
SOURCE : California Law Revision Commission
DIGEST : This bill provides that enforcement of a money
judgment or judgment for possession or sale of property
under the Family Code would be enforceable until satisfied
in full. Additionally, this bill allows a court in limited
civil cases to enforce orders under the Family Code.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that a judgment or order
for possession or sale of property under the Family Code is
subject to a 10-year enforcement period.
Existing law provides that a judgment for child, family, or
spousal support is enforceable until paid in full and
exempt from any requirement that judgments be renewed.
CONTINUED
AB 2126
Page
2
Those judgments may be renewed to update the amount owed on
the judgment and are not subject to the defense of laches
except for any part of the judgment that is owed to the
state.
Existing law does not provide a time period for enforcement
of a non-support money judgment, nor are those judgments
exempt from a defense of laches.
This bill provides that all money judgments or judgments
for possession or sale of property under the Family Code
are enforceable until paid in full or otherwise satisfied.
This bill provides that judgments may, but are not required
to be renewed. Failure to renew has no effect on the
enforceability of the judgment.
This bill preserves the existing exemption from the
equitable defense of laches for support judgments, except
for that part of the judgment owed to the state.
This bill requires the Judicial Council of California to
develop self-help materials that include a description of
remedies available for enforcement of a judgment under the
Family Code, and practical advice on how to avoid disputes
relating to enforcement of a support obligation. Those
materials would be required to be placed on the Judicial
Council self-help web site.
Existing law prevents a court from granting certain types
of relief in limited civil cases, including awards greater
than $25,000, permanent injunctions, determination of title
to real property, and enforcement of orders under the
Family Code.
This bill removes the prohibition of enforcing orders under
the Family Code in limited civil cases. Actions for
enforcement, however, would be limited to the
jurisdictional $25,000 limit of the limited civil case.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/26/06)
AB 2126
Page
3
California Law Revision Commission (source)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, this bill
"help[s] to avoid the unfairness that can result from
significantly different enforcement rights applying to
similar judgments." The bill's sponsor, California Law
Revision Commission, points out that the majority of family
law litigants are self-represented. Accordingly, the
author states that "[a] single rule for all Family Code
judgments would be significantly less confusing."
The sponsor further states in its 2005 recommendation that
the "multiplicity of rules is potentially confusing ...
[and] may also lead to inequitable results, with very
similar judgments subject to significantly different
enforcement periods." Specifically, the sponsor lists
three factors which support a simplified rule:
1. Family law proceedings can have a profound effect on the
economic stability and welfare of former spouses and
their dependent children.
2. Special pressures in family law cases may delay the
enforcement of a judgment.
3. The unusual prevalence of self-represented litigants in
family law cases.
Accordingly, the California Law Revision Commission
recommends this bill to address those problems.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aghazarian, Arambula, Baca, Bass, Benoit, Berg,
Bermudez, Blakeslee, Bogh, Calderon, Canciamilla, Chavez,
Chu, Cogdill, Cohn, Coto, Daucher, De La Torre, DeVore,
Dymally, Emmerson, Evans, Frommer, Goldberg, Hancock,
Harman, Jerome Horton, Shirley Horton, Houston, Huff,
Jones, Karnette, Keene, Klehs, Koretz, La Malfa, Laird,
Leno, Leslie, Levine, Lieber, Lieu, Liu, Matthews, Maze,
McCarthy, Montanez, Mountjoy, Mullin, Nakanishi, Nation,
Nava, Negrete McLeod, Niello, Oropeza, Parra, Pavley,
Plescia, Richman, Ridley-Thomas, Sharon Runner, Ruskin,
AB 2126
Page
4
Saldana, Salinas, Strickland, Torrico, Tran, Umberg,
Vargas, Villines, Walters, Wolk, Wyland, Yee, Nunez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chan, Garcia, Haynes, La Suer, Spitzer
RJG:mel 6/26/06 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****