BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2767
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 2767 (Committee on Judiciary) - As Amended: April 7, 2010
PROPOSED CONSENT
SUBJECT : CIVIL LAW: OMNIBUS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD VARIOUS NON-CONTROVERSIAL CHANGES BE MADE TO
THE CALIFORNIA CODES?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial committee bill is the Assembly Judiciary
Committee's omnibus civil law bill. In order to be included in
the bill, each provision must be non-controversial and not so
substantive as to be more appropriate for a stand-alone bill.
Furthermore, if a non-controversial provision later becomes
controversial, that provision will be removed from the bill.
This bill enacts assorted changes to various sections of the
California Codes. These changes include (1) clarifying the
disposition of unclaimed victim restitution money held by the
superior court; (2) making various code revisions necessitated
by trial court restructuring; (3) clarifying the Legislature's
intent to allow copying, as well as inspection, of paternity
files under certain conditions in family law cases; (4)
correcting inadvertent drafting errors or omissions arising from
recent legislation; and (5) making other technical and
clarifying changes. The bill is supported by the Judicial
Council and has no known opposition.
SUMMARY : Makes several non-controversial and clarifying changes
to the codes. Specifically, this bill :
1)Corrects a drafting error in AB 1046 (Stats. 2009) that
specifies the wrong date on which the Judicial Council is
first required to submit to the Legislature (and then every
three years thereafter) the amount by which the dollar amounts
of homestead exemptions in effect immediately before that date
may be increased, and take effect if subsequently approved by
the Legislature.
AB 2767
Page 2
2)Requires any money representing restitution collected on
behalf of victims that remains unclaimed for three years, even
after published notice has been made, to be deposited either
into the State Restitution Fund exclusively for the purposes
of providing victim services or into the general fund of a
county that administers a victim services program exclusively
for the provision of victim services.
3)Revises and updates code references made obsolete by trial
court restructuring, in addition to making several technical
revisions also relating to trial court restructuring. These
provisions address subjects such as municipal court marshals,
municipal court bank accounts, interest on deposits of bail,
and compensation of court appointed experts, interpreters and
translators.
4)Corrects an inadvertent drafting omission in SB 539 (Stats.
2007) that failed to make a corresponding change to the
interest rate on late payments to the State Court Construction
Penalty from 1 percent per month to the Local Agency
Investment Fund rate (LAIF rate).
5)Clarifies that "inspection" of confidential paternity files by
parties and, with written consent, their attorneys and agents
of attorneys, includes both inspection and copying of the
files, as provided.
6)Corrects a drafting error in AB 233 (Stats. 2009) that caused
the inadvertent yet significant omission of the word "not"
from provisions intended to prohibit the secretary, treasurer,
or chief financial officer of a nonprofit religious
corporation from serving concurrently as the president or
chair of the board of the corporation.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that on April 1, 2010, and at each three-year
interval ending on April 1 thereafter, the Judicial Council
shall submit to the Legislature the amount by which the dollar
amounts of homestead exemptions in effect immediately before
that date may be increased as provided in subdivision (d).
(Code of Civil Procedure Section 704.730(c).)
2)Provides that, except as otherwise provided by law, any money,
AB 2767
Page 3
excluding restitution to victims, that has been deposited with
a superior court, or that a superior court is holding in trust
for the lawful owner, in a court bank account or in a court
trust account in a county treasury, that remains unclaimed for
three years shall become the property of the superior court
if, after published notice pursuant to this section, the money
is not claimed or no verified complaint is filed and served.
(Gov. Code 68084.1(a).)
3)Pursuant to the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act,
requires the state rather than counties to be responsible for
trial court operations, necessitating significant trial court
restructuring. (Gov. Code Sections 77000 to 77655.)
4)Pursuant to Proposition 220, approved by the voters in 1998,
permits the municipal and superior courts in each county to
unify, also necessitating significant trial court
restructuring.
5)Requires the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) to
determine whether any provisions of law are obsolete as a
result of enactment of the Trial Court Interpreter Employment
Protection and Governance Act, the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial
Court Funding Act of 1997 (Chapter 850 of the Statutes of
1997), or the implementation of trial court unification. Also
requires the CLRC to recommend to the Legislature any
amendments to remove those obsolete provisions and report its
recommendations to the Legislature, including any proposed
statutory changes. (Gov. Code 71674.)
6)Provides that, upon receipt of any delinquent payment required
by law to be paid to the State Court Facilities Construction
Fund, the Controller shall calculate a penalty on any
delinquent payment by multiplying the amount of the delinquent
payment at a daily rate equivalent to 1 1/2 percent per month
for the number of days the payment is delinquent. Further
provides that these penalty amounts shall be paid by the
county to the Controller no later than 45 days after the end
of the month in which the penalty was calculated, and that all
money received by the Controller under this section shall be
deposited in the State Court Facilities Construction Fund.
(Gov. Code 70377(b) and (c).)
7)Provides that paternity cases may be held in closed court and
that paternity files are confidential, subject to inspection
AB 2767
Page 4
by the parties to the action, their attorneys, and authorized
agents of the attorneys with written consent. (Family Code
Section 7643.)
8)Provides that any number of offices of a nonprofit religious
corporation may be held by the same person unless the articles
or bylaws provide otherwise, except that the secretary, the
treasurer, or the chief financial officer may serve
concurrently as the president or chair of the board.
(Corporations Code Section 9213.)
COMMENTS : This non-controversial committee bill is the Assembly
Judiciary Committee's omnibus civil law bill. In order to be
included in the bill, each provision must be non-controversial
and not so substantive as to be more appropriate for a
stand-alone bill. Furthermore, if a non-controversial provision
later becomes controversial, that provision will be removed from
the bill.
The bill corrects a drafting error in AB 1046 (2009). This bill
would correct a drafting error contained in AB 1046 (Anderson)
Ch. 499, Stats. 2009, a bill passed by this Committee on consent
last year. AB 1046 currently requires the Judicial Council to
submit to the Legislature the dollar amounts for the first
potential increase in the homestead exemption amounts on April
1, 2010, and then every three years thereafter. However, AB
1046 only became effective on January 1, 2010, which is the same
date that the new increases to the homestead exemption mandated
in the bill took effect. According to the author of AB 1046,
the underlying legislative scheme was not designed to require
the Judicial Council to conduct a review of the homestead
exemption amounts and report to the Legislature regarding these
amounts just three months after the new increases in this
exemption became law, and that the current requirement is simply
the result of a drafting error. Instead, AB 1046 should have
specified the correct date of April 1, 2013. This bill would
fix that error and avoid the need for the Judicial Council to
submit an unnecessary report to the Legislature.
This bill clarifies the disposition of unclaimed victim
restitution money held by the superior court. This bill would
require courts to deposit any unclaimed victim restitution money
that they have been holding for a minimum of three years into
either the State Restitution Fund or into the county general
fund to be used by a local agency for purposes of victim
AB 2767
Page 5
services. Due to a drafting oversight, superior courts lack
the necessary clarity to process unclaimed victim restitution,
and in many cases, this results in money being unavailable for
any purpose. This bill would clarify statute and provide
superior courts with the necessary direction to process
unclaimed victim restitution.
This bill makes various technical changes necessitated by trial
court restructuring. This bill would revise and update code
references made obsolete by trial court restructuring, in
addition to making several technical revisions relating to trial
court restructuring. Specifically, this bill amends Code of
Civil Procedure Sections 1085 and 1103; Evidence Code Sections
731, 752, and 753; Gov. Code Sections 53647.5, 53679, 68092, and
71601; Penal Code Section 13510; and relocates an existing
provision to new Gov. Code Section 27473. These code sections
address subjects such as municipal court marshals, municipal
court bank accounts, interest on deposits of bail, and
compensation of court appointed experts, interpreters and
translators, among other things. The California Law Revision
Commission (CLRC) proposes these revisions in response to
legislative directive to remove and clarify statutes made
obsolete by trial court restructuring. The author contends that
these revisions will help prevent confusion and disputes,
potentially reduce litigation expenses, and conserve judicial
resources.
This bill addresses an oversight in SB 539 (2007). This bill
would create uniformity in the law by changing the interest rate
on late payments to the State Court Construction Penalty from 1
percent per month to the Local Agency Investment Fund rate
(LAIF rate). This is necessary to address an oversight revealed
after implementation of SB 539 (Margett), Ch. 435, Stats. 2007.
That bill successfully changed the penalty interest rate charged
for late remittance of court fines (pursuant to Gov. Code
Section 68085) from 1.5% to the LAIF rate, but inadvertently
failed to make a corresponding change to the penalty interest
rate on late remittance of State Court Construction Penalty
payments. The oversight was first identified by the State
Controller, who then contacted the State Association of County
Auditors to inform them of this discrepancy in the law. The
county auditors now propose to correct this oversight through
the Omnibus bill.
This bill clarifies the Legislature's intent to allow copying,
AB 2767
Page 6
as well as inspection, of paternity files under certain
conditions. In 2008, the Legislature passed AB 1679 (Evans) to
amend Family Code Section 7643 to permit inspection of
confidential paternity files by parties to the action, their
attorneys, and with written consent, agents of the attorneys.
The legislative history of AB 1679, as evidenced by the bill's
background sheet and the sponsor's testimony in committee,
reveals that the amendment was intended to permit inspection and
copying of the files. However, there are reports that some
court clerks have interpreted the word "inspection" literally
and are allowing attorneys, attorney services or authorized
persons only to "inspect" the paternity files, but not to copy
the file for later reference. This bill would simply clarify
that both inspection and copying of paternity files are
permitted, as provided by Section 7643.
This bill corrects a drafting error in AB 1233 (2009). This
bill would enact a technical correction needed due to a drafting
error in AB 1233 (Silva), Ch. 631, Stats. 2009, that produces an
unwanted and inappropriate change in the law. AB 1233 amended
Corporations Code Sections 5213 (pertaining to nonprofit public
benefit corporations) and 9213 (pertaining to nonprofit
religious corporations.) Both sections previously stated,
"neither the secretary nor the chief financial officer may serve
concurrently as the president or chairman of the board." As
amended by AB 1233, Section 5213 correctly stated, "the
secretary, the treasurer, or the chief financial officer may not
serve concurrently as the president or chair of the board."
(emphasis added.) An identical change was supposed to be made
to Section 9213, but the word "not" was accidentally left out
due to a drafting error. This bill would fix the inadvertent
omission of the word "not" from Section 9213 and restore
consistency and logic to the statute.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Judicial Council of California
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
AB 2767
Page 7