Legislation > Pending Legislation > May 2008 Report

CDRC Legislative Status Report

 

AB 567(Saldana) Common Interest Development Bureau.

Introduced: 02/21/2007

Last Amend: 01/17/2008

Status: 02/14/2008-Referred to Coms. on T. & H. and RLS.

Location: 02/14/2008-S T. & H.

Calendar: 06/10/08 1:30 p.m. - John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203) SEN TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

 

Summary:  Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, defines and regulates common interest developments, which include condominiums and planned developments. The act requires that a common interest development be managed by an association, and establishes requirements for association operating rules and meetings and for the resolution of specified disputes. This bill would, until January 1, 2014 , establish in the Department of Consumer Affairs the Common Interest Development Bureau. The bill would require the bureau, among other things, to offer training materials and courses to common interest development directors, officers, and owners, in subjects relevant to the operation of a common interest development and the rights and duties of an association or owner. The bill would require the bureau to maintain a toll-free telephone number and Internet Web site for purposes of further providing that information and assistance, and would require an association director or agent to meet certain requirements in that regard. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

 

History:

Feb. 14 Referred to Coms. on T. & H. and RLS.

Jan. 30 In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

Jan. 29 Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 45. Noes 31. Page 3853.)

Jan. 24 In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 5. Page 3814.) (January 24). Read second time. To third reading.

Jan. 18 Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

Jan. 17 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Read second time and amended.

Jan. 16 From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (January 16).

Apr. 23 In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

Apr. 11 Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

Apr. 10 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. Read second time and amended.

Apr. 9 Referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

Feb. 22 From printer. May be heard in committee March 24.

Feb. 21 Read first time. To print.

 

Position: Watch

 

AB 1092(Emmerson) Recreational vehicles.

Introduced: 02/23/2007

Last Amend: 07/17/2007

Status: 10/10/2007-Chaptered by the Secretary of State, Chapter Number 406, Statutes of 2007

Location: 10/10/2007-A CHAPTERED

 

Summary: Existing law prohibits a manufacturer, manufacturer branch, distributor, or distributor branch that is licensed under the Vehicle Code from engaging in certain conduct involving a dealer having a franchise for the sale of new vehicles or vehicle parts. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill contains other existing laws.

 

History:

Oct. 10 Approved by the Governor.

Oct. 10 Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 406, Statutes of 2007.

Sept. 17 Enrolled and to the Governor at 3:30 p.m.

Sept. 5 Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (Page 2925.) Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 2936.)

Sept. 4 Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 36. Noes 2. Page 2274.)

Sept. 4 In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after September 6 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

Aug. 21 Read second time. To third reading.

Aug. 20 From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

July 17 Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.

July 16 From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) .

June 28 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

June 27 From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Re-referred. (Ayes 9. Noes 1.) .

June 18 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on T. & H.

June 6 In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

May 23 Referred to Coms. on T. & H. and JUD.

May 17 Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 73. Noes 0. Page 1535.)

May 17 In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

May 14 Read second time. To Consent Calendar.

May 10 From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (May 9).

Apr. 24 From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. Re-referred. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 23).

Apr. 11 Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.

Apr. 10 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. Read second time and amended.

Apr. 9 Referred to Com. on TRANS.

Feb. 26 Read first time.

Feb. 25 From printer. May be heard in committee March 27.

Feb. 23 Introduced. To print.

 

Position: Watch

 

AB 1248(Evans) Courts.

Introduced: 02/23/2007

Last Amend: 09/05/2007

Status: 10/14/2007-Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 738, Statutes of 2007.

Location: 10/14/2007-A CHAPTERED

 

Summary:  Existing law requires the Administrative Office of the Courts to make monthly distributions from superior court filing fees to the law library fund in each county in specified amounts. This bill would increase the amount of these monthly distributions for the Counties of Inyo, Mendocino, Plumas, and San Benito, as specified. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

 

History:

Oct. 14 Approved by the Governor.

Oct. 14 Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 738, Statutes of 2007.

Oct. 2 Enrolled and to the Governor at 10:45 a.m.

Sept. 12 Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 73. Noes 1. Page 3326.)

Sept. 11 In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.

Sept. 10 Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 35. Noes 5. Page 2518.)

Sept. 6 Read second time. To third reading.

Sept. 5 Read third time, amended. To second reading.

Aug. 31 From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) . Read second time. To third reading.

Aug. 20 In committee: Placed on Appropriations suspense file.

Aug. 1 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.

July 17 Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.

July 16 From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) .

July 9 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

June 25 In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

June 19 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

June 14 Referred to Com. on JUD.

June 5 In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

June 4 Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 77. Noes 1. Page 1822.)

June 1 From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (May 31). Read second time. To third reading.

May 10 In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

May 1 Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

Apr. 30 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Read second time and amended.

Apr. 17 From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 17).

Apr. 12 Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

Apr. 11 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

Apr. 10 In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

Mar. 28 Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

Mar. 27 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

Mar. 15 Referred to Com.

 

Position: Watch

 

AB 1725(Lieu) Evaluation of judicial appointments.

Introduced: 03/06/2007

Last Amend: 05/06/2008

Status: 05/08/2008-Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

Location: 05/08/2008-S JUD.

 

Summary: Existing law requires the Governor to submit the names of all potential appointees or nominees for a judicial office to a designated agency of the State Bar of California for evaluation of the qualifications of those appointees or nominees. Existing law autho rizes the State Bar, if the Governor has appointed a person to a trial court who has been found not qualified by the designated agency, to make this fact public after due notice to the appointee of its intention to do so . This bill would require the State Bar to make public the fact that the Governor has appointed a person to a trial court who has been found not qualified by the designated agency, after due notice to the appointee of its intention to do so .

 

History:

May 8 Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

May 6 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS.

Sept. 10 Re-referred to Com. on RLS. (Page 2483.)

Sept. 7 Read third time, amended, and returned to third reading.

July 9 From Consent Calendar. To third reading.

July 3 Read second time, amended, and to Consent Calendar.

July 2 From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. To Consent Calendar.

June 18 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

May 9 Referred to Com. on JUD.

Apr. 23 Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 73. Noes 0. Page 1115.)

Apr. 23 In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

Apr. 18 Read second time. To Consent Calendar.

Apr. 17 From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (April 17).

Apr. 11 Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

Apr. 10 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

Apr. 9 Referred to Com. on JUD.

Mar. 7 From printer. May be heard in committee April 6.

Mar. 6 Read first time. To print.

 

Position: Spot Bill - Watch

 

AB 2161(Swanson) Commissioner of Corporations: consumer complaints.

Introduced: 02/20/2008

Last Amend: 04/22/2008

Status: 05/07/2008-In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

Location: 05/07/2008-A APPR. SUSPENSE FILE

Calendar: 05/22/08 Upon call of the Chair - Room 4202 ASM APPROPRIATIONS SUSPENSE

 

Summary: The California Finance Lenders Law provides, among other things, for the licensure and regulation by the Commissioner of Corporations of persons engaged in the business of making consumer loans. The California Residential Mortgage Lending Act provides for the licensure and regulation by the commissioner of persons engaged in the business of making and servicing residential mortgage loans. Existing law requires the commissioner to apply the guidance on nontraditional mortgage product risks, as specified, to these licensees and authorizes the commissioner to adopt regulations in this regard. This bill would require the commissioner, on or before January 1, 2010, and annually thereafter, until January 1, 2012, to submit a written report to the Legislature regarding the aggregated data the commissioner receives pursuant to the consumer complaint process involving loans covered by the guidance implemented pursuant to these regulations.

 

History:

May 7 In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

Apr. 23 Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

Apr. 22 Read second time and amended.

Apr. 21 From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 2.) (April 14).

Apr. 7 In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

Apr. 1 Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.

Mar. 28 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on B. & F. Read second time and amended.

Mar. 5 Referred to Com. on B. & F.

Feb. 21 From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.

Feb. 20 Read first time. To print.

 

Position: Watch

 

AB 2164(Nakanishi) County law libraries.

Introduced: 02/20/2008

Last Amend: 04/22/2008

Status: 05/14/2008-In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

Location: 05/14/2008-A APPR. SUSPENSE FILE

Calendar: 05/22/08 Upon call of the Chair - Room 4202 ASM APPROPRIATIONS SUSPENSE

 

Summary:  Existing law requires the Administrative Office of the Courts to make monthly distributions from superior court filing fees to the law library fund in each county in specified amounts. The board of supervisors of each county was authorized, until January 1, 2008, to increase the amount distributed to its county law library fund from those filing fees whenever it determined that the increase was necessary to defray the expenses of the law library, as specified. Distribution changes after January 1, 2008, are required to be determined according to a specified process. This bill would require the commission on civil court fees established by the Judicial Council to review the level of funding needed to support county law libraries. The bill would require, no later than March 1, 2010, that the Judicial Council make recommendations to the Legislature regarding funding needs, potential sources of funding, service mission and delivery models, as well as the long-term facility needs of county law libraries, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council to consult with specified entities before making its recommendations .

 

History:

May 14 In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

Apr. 23 Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

Apr. 22 Read second time and amended.

Apr. 21 From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 8).

Apr. 1 In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

Mar. 25 In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

Mar. 5 Referred to Com. on JUD.

Feb. 21 From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.

Feb. 20 Read first time. To print.

 

Position: Watch

 

AB 2193(Tran) Civil discovery: out-of-state proceedings.

Introduced: 02/20/2008

Last Amend:

Status: 05/01/2008-Referred to Com. on JUD.

Location: 05/01/2008-S JUD.

Calendar: 06/10/08 1 p.m. - Room 112 SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION LETTERS DUE NO LATER THAN 5 P.M. 5/29, IN ROOM 2187 SEN JUDICIARY

 

Summary: Existing law permits a California court, by subpoena, to compel a natural person to submit to oral or written deposition, and to produce documents and things, in connection with actions pending outside of California. Existing law specifies the circumstances pursuant to which this power will be exercised, including when the out-of-state court has issued a mandate, a writ, and a letter of request. This bill would repeal these provisions and would enact the Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act. The provisions of the bill, beginning January 1, 2010, would apply to an organization as well as a natural person, and would apply to depositions for the production of tangible items and inspection of premises, in addition to those requiring testimony. The bill would broaden the range of documents issued by an out-of-state court pursuant to which a California court would be authorized to issue a subpoena in this regard. The bill would establish a process for obtaining a subpoena, which would require payment of a fee, to be deposited in the Trial Court Trust Fund, and submitting the subpoena of the out-of-state court with a specified application. The bill would provide that a party is not required to retain a local attorney to depose a witness in these circumstances. The bill would permit an active member of the California State Bar to who is retained by a party to an out-of-state proceeding to issue a deposition subpoena, as specified. The bill would provide a process for the resolution of a dispute regarding discovery conducted in California in connection with an out-of-state proceeding, and a request for relief in this regard would be filed in the superior court in which the discovery is sought with payment of specified fees. The bill would permit a party to appeal court orders in connection with a dispute by extraordinary writ to the appropriate court of appeal. The bill, beginning January 1, 2009, would require the Judicial Council to prepare an application form, and to either create subpoena forms, or modify existing subpoena forms, for issuance pursuant to its provisions.

 

History:

May 1 Referred to Com. on JUD.

Apr. 22 In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

Apr. 21 Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 75. Noes 0. Page 4749.)

Apr. 10 Read second time. To Consent Calendar.

Apr. 9 From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (April 9).

Mar. 25 From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. Re-referred. (Ayes 10. Noes 0. Page 4327.) (March 25).

Mar. 5 Referred to Com. on JUD.

Feb. 21 From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.

Feb. 20 Read first time. To print.

 

Position: Watch

 

AB 2220(Jones) Health care service plans: provider contracts: payment of claims.

Introduced: 02/20/2008

Last Amend: 04/22/2008

Status: 05/14/2008-In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

Location: 05/14/2008-A APPR. SUSPENSE FILE

Calendar: 05/22/08 Upon call of the Chair - Room 4202 ASM APPROPRIATIONS SUSPENSE

 

Summary: Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law requires that contracts with providers, among others, be fair, reasonable, and consistent with the objectives of the act, and provide a fast, fair, and cost-effective dispute resolution mechanism. This bill would require that impediments in reaching acceptable contract terms for contracts between specified hospital-based physicians or hospital-based physician groups and health care service plans or their contracting payers be resolved through binding arbitration, as specified. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

 

History:

May 14 In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

Apr. 23 Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

Apr. 22 Read second time and amended.

Apr. 21 From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (April 15).

Apr. 7 Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

Apr. 3 Referred to Com. on HEALTH. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on HEALTH. Read second time and amended.

Feb. 21 From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.

Feb. 20 Read first time. To print.

 

Position: Watch

 

AB 2336(Nakanishi) Contractors: arbitration procedures.

Introduced: 02/21/2008

Last Amend:

Status: 04/08/2008-In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

Location: 03/05/2008-A JUD.

 

Summary: Existing law, the Contractors' State License Law, provides for the licensing and regulation of contractors by the Contractors' State License Board in the Department of Consumer Affairs. This bill would increase that amount to $100,000. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

 

History:

Apr. 8 In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

Apr. 1 In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

Mar. 5 Referred to Coms. on JUD. and B. & P.

Feb. 22 From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.

Feb. 21 Read first time. To print.

 

Position: Watch

 

AB 2359(Jones) Loans.

Introduced: 02/21/2008

Last Amend: 05/15/2008

Status: 05/15/2008-Read third time, amended, and returned to third reading. (Page 5133.).

Location: 05/15/2008-A THIRD READING

Calendar: 05/22/08 27 ASM THIRD READING FILE

 

Summary:  Existing law regulates the process of foreclosure on real property subject to a mortgage or deed of trust. Existing law provides that any express agreement made or entered into by a borrower at the time of or in connection with the making of or renewing of any loan secured by any instrument creating a lien on real property, whereby the borrower agrees to waive specified rights or privileges conferred upon him or her, shall be void. Existing law excepts from these provisions any deed of trust, mortgage, or other liens given to secure the payment of bonds or other indebtedness authorized or permitted to be issued by the Commissioner of Corporations or made by a public utility, as specified. This bill would prohibit a broker, trustee, or mortgagee, or his or her agent, beneficiary, or assigns from requiring as a condition of an agreement regarding a high-cost loan, subprime loan, or nontraditional mortgage, as defined, that a borrower or an applicant for the loan waive any rights, remedies, obligations, or procedures of California law with respect to a residential mortgage or mortgage foreclosure. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

 

History:

May 15 Read third time, amended, and returned to third reading. (Page 5133.).

Apr. 29 Read second time. To third reading.

Apr. 28 Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

Apr. 24 From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 3.) (April 21).

Apr. 14 In committee: Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

Apr. 7 In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

Apr. 1 Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.

Mar. 28 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on B. & F. Read second time and amended.

Mar. 6 Referred to Com. on B. & F.

Feb. 22 From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.

Feb. 21 Read first time. To print.

 

Position: Oppose Unless Amend

 

AB 2846(Feuer) Common interest developments: assessments.

Introduced: 02/22/2008

Last Amend: 05/01/2008

Status: 05/15/2008-In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

Location: 05/15/2008-S RLS.

 

Summary: The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act provides for the creation and regulation of common interest developments and for the levying of assessments by homeowners' associations. Under the act, a homeowners' association or an owner of a separate interest in a common interest development may not file a civil action in the superior court relating to enforcement of the act or certain other matters unless the parties have endeavored to submit their dispute to alternative dispute resolution in accordance with specified procedures. This requirement does not apply to a small claims action or an assessment dispute. The act requires an association to distribute a written notice regarding assessments and foreclosure to each member of the association during the 60-day period immediately preceding the beginning of the association's fiscal year, as specified. This bill would provide that, if a dispute exists between the owner of a separate interest and the homeowners' association regarding assessments imposed by the association, and the amount in dispute does not exceed the jurisdictional limits of the small claims court, the owner of the separate interest may either request alternative dispute resolution in accordance with the procedures described above or pay under protest the disputed amount , including certain fees, costs, and other specified amounts, and commence an action in small claims court. The bill would make related changes to the notice described above.

 

History:

May 15 Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 74. Noes 0. Page 5136.)

May 15 In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

May 5 Read second time. To third reading.

May 1 Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

Apr. 30 From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (April 30).

Apr. 23 Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

Apr. 22 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. Read second time and amended.

Mar. 13 Referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

Feb. 25 Read first time.

Feb. 24 From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.

Feb. 22 Introduced. To print.

 

Position: Watch

 

AB 2947(Eng) Elder and dependent adult abuse: waiver of rights.

Introduced: 02/22/2008

Last Amend: 05/07/2008

Status: 05/08/2008-Read second time. To third reading.

Location: 05/08/2008-A THIRD READING

Calendar: 05/22/08 62 ASM THIRD READING FILE

 

Summary: Existing law provides that a written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, except for those grounds that exist for the revocation of any contract. This bill would provide that those provisions shall not apply to any agreement applicable to a future controversy entered into between a residential care facility for the elderly, as defined, an elder, as defined, or a dependent adult, as defined, or his or her representative, if the agreement is entered into in violation of a specified law prohibiting elder and dependent adult abuse. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

 

History:

May 8 Read second time. To third reading.

May 7 Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

May 6 From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 3.) (April 29).

Apr. 9 From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Re-referred. (Ayes 4. Noes 1.) (April 8).

Apr. 7 Re-referred to Com. on AGING & L.T.C.

Apr. 3 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on AGING & L.T.C. Read second time and amended.

Mar. 13 Referred to Coms. on AGING & L.T.C. and JUD.

Feb. 25 Read first time.

Feb. 24 From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.

Feb. 22 Introduced. To print.

 

Position: Oppose Unless Amend

 

AB 3053(Committee on Judiciary) Domestic relations.

Introduced: 02/28/2008

Last Amend: 04/02/2008

Status: 04/24/2008-Referred to Com. on JUD.

Location: 04/24/2008-S JUD.

 

Summary: Existing law establishes procedures related to proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, and legal separation, as specified. Existing law, the Collaborative Family Law Act, allows the parties to those proceedings, by written agreement, to use a collaborative law process, as defined, rather than an adversarial judicial proceeding to resolve those disputes. This bill would direct the court to refrain from requiring court appearances inconsistent with the parties' agreement absent good cause.

 

<