BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                      



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                  AB 1388|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                 THIRD READING


          Bill No:  AB 1388
          Author:   Wieckowski (D), et al.
          Amended:  6/10/11 in Senate
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE  :  3-1, 6/28/11
          AYES:  Evans, Corbett, Leno
          NOES:  Blakeslee
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Harman

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  49-26, 5/2/11 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Earnings withholding orders

           SOURCE  :     Western Center on Law & Poverty


           DIGEST :    This bill strikes the for common necessaries of 
          life in an earnings withholding order exception, thus 
          providing that wages cannot be levied for debt incurred for 
          the common necessaries of life if those wages are necessary 
          for the support of the debtor or his/her family, and also 
          codifies an exception for debt incurred pursuant to an 
          order or award for the payment of attorney's fees under 
          specified Family Code sections, and make a related 
          clarifying change. 

           ANALYSIS  :    Existing law requires an employer to withhold 
          the amounts required by an earnings withholding order from 
          all earnings of the employee payable for any pay period of 
          the employee which ends during the withholding period, as 
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               AB 1388
                                                                Page 
          2

          specified.  (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 706.022.)

          Existing law provides that the portion of the judgment 
          debtor's earnings that the debtor proves is necessary for 
          the support of the debtor, or his/her family, is exempt 
          from levy unless:

           The debt was incurred for the common necessaries of life 
            furnished to the judgment debtor or the family of the 
            judgment debtor.

           The debt was incurred for personal services rendered by 
            an employee or former employee of the judgment debtor.

           The order is seeks to collect a state tax liability.  
            (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 706.051.)

          This bill strikes the above exception for common 
          necessaries of life, and adds an exemption for debt 
          incurred pursuant to an order or award for the payment of 
          attorney's fees under specified sections of the Family 
          Code.

          This bill provides that the cross-reference to "common 
          necessaries of life," contained in a section related to the 
          waiver of court fees and costs, refers to that term as the 
          above section read prior to January 1, 2012

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  No   
          Local:  No

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  6/28/11)

          Western Center on Law & Poverty (source)
          California Church IMPACT
          California Immigrant Policy Center
          California National Organization for Women
          Consumer Attorneys of California
          East Bay Community Law Center
          Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  6/28/11)

          California Association of Collectors

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               AB 1388
                                                                Page 
          3

          USCB, Inc.

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to the author's office, 
          Amending this antiquated section of law by removing Code 
          Civ. Proc. Section 706.051(c)(1) will merely give 
          individuals the opportunity to prove to a judge that they 
          can't currently afford a garnishment or levy.  Debtors 
          cannot file Claims of Exemption from garnishments and 
          levies that stem from medical bills, food, shelter or other 
          common necessities of life.  This leads to the perverse 
          situation in which someone who runs up a huge gambling debt 
          at a casino can escape having his/her wages garnished, but 
          a debtor taken to the ER after a car accident will lose 25 
          percent of his/her wages till the medical bill is paid. 

          For low-income workers, wage garnishments can quickly turn 
          into homelessness and hunger.  This is especially cruel 
          because medical debts are considered a common necessity of 
          life and are often the least voluntary of debts: no one 
          chooses to fall ill.  With budget cuts to Medi-Cal, Healthy 
          Families, Indigent Care, and nearly all other 
          health-related programs, many more of the working poor are 
          going to have medical bills, especially emergency room 
          bills that they can't pay.  Eliminating � 706.051(c)(1) 
          will not erase anyone's debt for the common necessities of 
          life.  It will simply provide for more reasonable repayment 
          options to be negotiated, or for repayment to be delayed 
          until it no longer means disaster for the debtor's family.

          The East Bay Community Law Center, in support, further 
          asserts, "�I]t makes no sense to permit debt collectors to 
          garnish poor people's wages and deny them access to food 
          and shelter until the debtor can manage to explain to the 
          sheriff or court what has happened.  Section 706.051 of the 
          Code of Civil Procedure provides that a debtor who can 
          establish that the funds seized by a debt collector are 
          "necessary for the support" of her family can get those 
          funds back.  But the law as currently written contains an 
          odd exception allowing the debt collector to take the money 
          if the debt was incurred "for the common necessaries of 
          life." . . .  AB 1388 would correct this aberration and 
          simply provide that debt collectors cannot take away the 
          very wages that allow poor people to survive.


                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               AB 1388
                                                                Page 
          4

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :    USCB, Inc., in opposition, 
          contends that this bill would "further frustrate the 
          ability of creditors to collect debts which are lawfully 
          owed," and that "In this age of plastic, by expanding the 
          exemption to cover this type of debt, debtors will be able 
          to increase the likelihood that they will escape having to 
          pay debts they lawfully owe.  As a result, creditors will 
          be forced to charge higher interest rates to those 
          consumers who do pay their debts.

          The California Association of Collectors notes that the 
          "policy rationale for excluding common necessaries of life 
          from the claim of exemption process was to protect 
          consumers from creditors refusing to extend credit for 
          those necessaries," and contends that the "net effect of 
          taking medical care and hospital services out of the 
          definition will be to encourage health care providers to 
          demand payment prior to rendering of services.  Consumers 
          will be forced to pay using bank credit cards with higher 
          interest rates and penalties."  
           

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  : 
          AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block, 
            Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, 
            Butler, Campos, Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Davis, 
            Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, 
            Gatto, Gordon, Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, 
            Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, 
            Mitchell, Monning, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino, 
            Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Wieckowski, Williams, 
            Yamada, John A. P�rez
          NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly, 
            Fletcher, Garrick, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Harkey, 
            Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell, 
            Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Valadao, 
            Wagner
          NO VOTE RECORDED: Charles Calderon, Gorell, Mendoza, Pan, 
            Vacancy


          RJG:do  6/29/11   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               AB 1388
                                                                Page 
          5


                                ****  END  ****
          










































                                                           CONTINUED