Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 83

Introduced by Senator Monning

February 20, 2014

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 83—Relative to the California Law Revision Commission.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SCR 83, as introduced, Monning. California Law Revision Commission: studies.

Existing law requires the California Law Revision Commission to study, and limits the commission to studying, topics approved by resolution of the Legislature.

This measure would grant approval to the commission to continue its study of designated topics that the Legislature previously authorized or directed the commission to study.

The measure would require the commission, before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics the Legislature has authorized or directed the commission to study, to submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, submit a description of the change. The measure would also invite a staff member of the commission to appear and testify at any committee hearing of a bill to implement a commission recommendation. The measure would also request the commission to provide a copy of a commission recommendation to each member of a policy committee that is hearing a bill that would implement the recommendation.

Fiscal committee: no.

WHEREAS, The California Law Revision Commission is
authorized to study topics set forth in the calendar contained in its
report to the Governor and the Legislature that have been or are
thereafter approved for study by concurrent resolution of the
Legislature, and topics that have been referred to the commission
for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature or by statute;
and

WHEREAS, The commission, in its annual report covering its
activities for 2013 and 2014, recommends continued study of 23
topics, all of which the Legislature has previously authorized or
directed the commission to study; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate of the State of California, the Assembly
thereof concurring, That the Legislature approves for continued
study by the California Law Revision Commission the topics listed
below, all of which the Legislature has previously authorized or
directed the commission to study:

(1) Whether the law should be revised that relates to creditors’
remedies, including, but not limited to, attachment, garnishment,
execution, repossession of property (including the claim and
delivery statute, self-help repossession of property, and the
Commercial Code provisions on repossession of property),
confession of judgment procedures, default judgment procedures,
enforcement of judgments, the right of redemption, procedures
under private power of sale in a trust deed or mortgage, possessory
and nonpossessory liens, insolvency, and related matters.

(2) Whether the California Probate Code should be revised,
including, but not limited to, the issue of whether California should
adopt, in whole or in part, the Uniform Probate Code, and related
matters.

(3) Whether the law should be revised that relates to real and
personal property, including, but not limited to, a marketable title
act, covenants, servitudes, conditions, and restrictions on land use
or relating to land, powers of termination, escheat of property and
the disposition of unclaimed or abandoned property, eminent
domain, quiet title actions, abandonment or vacation of public
streets and highways, partition, rights and duties attendant on
assignment, subletting, termination, or abandonment of a lease,
and related matters.

(4) Whether the law should be revised that relates to family law,
including, but not limited to, community property, the adjudication
of child and family civil proceedings, child custody, adoption,
guardianship, freedom from parental custody and control, and
related matters, including other subjects covered by the Family
Code.

(5) Whether the law relating to discovery in civil cases should
be revised.

(6) Whether the law relating to the rights and disabilities of
minors and incompetent persons should be revised.

(7) Whether the Evidence Code should be revised.

(8) Whether the law relating to arbitration, mediation, and other
alternative dispute resolution techniques should be revised.

(9) Whether there should be changes to administrative law.

(10) Whether the law relating to the payment and the shifting
of attorney’s fees between litigants should be revised.

(11) Whether the Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit
Association Act, or parts of that uniform act, and related provisions
should be adopted in California.

(12) Recommendations to be reported pertaining to statutory
changes that may be necessitated by court unification.

(13) Whether the law of contracts should be revised, including
the law relating to the effect of electronic communications on the
law governing contract formation, the statute of frauds, the parol
evidence rule, and related matters.

(14) Whether the law governing common interest housing
developments should be revised to clarify the law, eliminate
unnecessary or obsolete provisions, consolidate existing statutes
in one place in the codes, establish a clear, consistent, and unified
policy with regard to formation and management of these
developments and transaction of real property interests located
within them, and to determine to what extent they should be subject
to regulation.

(15) Whether the statutes of limitation for legal malpractice
actions should be revised to recognize equitable tolling or other
adjustment for the circumstances of simultaneous litigation, and
related matters.

(16) Whether the law governing disclosure of public records
and the law governing protection of privacy in public records
should be revised to better coordinate them, including consolidation
and clarification of the scope of required disclosure and creation
of a single set of disclosure procedures, to provide appropriate
enforcement mechanisms, and to ensure that the law governing
disclosure of public records adequately treats electronic
information, and related matters.

(17) Whether the law governing criminal sentences for
enhancements relating to weapons or injuries should be revised to
simplify and clarify the law and eliminate unnecessary or obsolete
provisions.

(18) Whether the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing
with Section 66410) of Title 7 of the Government Code) and the
Mitigation Fee Act (Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000),
Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 66010), Chapter 7
(commencing with Section 66012), Chapter 8 (commencing with
Section 66016), and Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 66020)
of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code) should be revised
to improve their organization, resolve inconsistencies, and clarify
and rationalize provisions, and related matters.

(19) Whether the Uniform Statute and Rule Construction Act
(1995) should be adopted in California in whole or in part, and
related matters.

(20) Whether the law governing the place of trial in a civil case
should be revised.

(21) Analysis of the legal and policy implications of treating a
charter school as a public entity for the purposes of Division 3.6
(commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the Government
Code.

(22) Whether the Fish and Game Code and related statutory law
should be revised to improve its organization, clarify its meaning,
resolve inconsistencies, eliminate unnecessary or obsolete
provisions, standardize terminology, clarify program authority and
funding sources, and make other minor improvements, without
making any significant substantive change to the effect of the law.

(23) (A) Analysis of the relationship under current law between
mediation confidentiality and attorney malpractice and other
misconduct, and the purposes for, and impact of, those laws on
public protection, professional ethics, attorney discipline, client
rights, the willingness of parties to participate in voluntary and
mandatory mediation, and the effectiveness of mediation, as well
as any other issues that the commission deems relevant. Among
other matters, the commission shall consider the following:

(i) Sections 703.5, 958, and 1119 of the Evidence Code and
predecessor provisions, as well as California court rulings,
including, but not limited to, Cassel v. Superior Court (2011) 51
Cal.4th 113, Porter v. Wyner (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 949, and
Wimsatt v. Superior Court (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 137.

(ii) The availability and propriety of contractual waivers.

(iii) The law in other jurisdictions, including the Uniform
Mediation Act, as it has been adopted in other states, other statutory
acts, scholarly commentary, judicial decisions, and any data
regarding the impact of differing confidentiality rules on the use
of mediation.

(B) In studying this matter, the commission shall request input
from experts and interested parties, including, but not limited to,
representatives from the California Supreme Court, the State Bar
of California, legal malpractice defense counsel, other attorney
groups and individuals, mediators, and mediation trade
associations. The commission shall make any recommendations
that it deems appropriate for the revision of California law to
balance the competing public interests between confidentiality and
accountability; and be it further

Resolved, That before commencing work on any project within
the calendar of topics the Legislature has authorized or directed
the commission to study, the commission shall submit a detailed
description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of
the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee
on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of
the project there is a major change to the scope of work, submit a
description of the change; and be it further

Resolved, That the staff of the commission is invited to appear
and testify at any committee hearing of a bill to implement a
commission recommendation, for the purpose of explaining the
recommendation and answering questions posed by committee
members, provided that the staff may not advocate for the passage
or defeat of the legislation; and be it further

Resolved, That the commission is requested to provide a copy
of a commission recommendation to each member of a policy
committee that is hearing a bill that would implement the
recommendation; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of
this resolution to the California Law Revision Commission and to
the author for appropriate distribution.