Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/12/2017 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB208 | |
| HB175 | |
| HB170 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 200 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 208 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 175 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 223 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 208-TRUSTS; COMM PROP TRUSTS; POWERS OF APPT
2:17:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 208, "An Act relating to trusts and powers of
appointment; and providing for an effective date."
2:18:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DELENA GOODWIN JOHNSON, Alaska State Legislature,
paraphrased her sponsor statement, as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Alaska has set a precedence as being a leader in the
Nation's estate and tax planning Industry. Banks,
trust companies, Alaskans, and Americans from all over
seek out Alaska to be the home of their financial
assets due to our environment which promotes economic
security, strength, and growth. House Bill 208, seeks
to continue the prosperity of this environment through
further fostering a conducive place where people can
invest their assets and know that our statutes will
insure their integrity, and ability to benefit their
intended audience.
We can look at House Bill 208 as a "flexibility" bill
which provides for those looking to perform the best
estate planning, whether they are residents or non-
residents, assurance that their irrevocable document
won't hinder its beneficiaries through unintended
results including; providing financial resource to a
dangerous habit, not providing ability to pay for
treatment of an unforeseeable disability, or by
providing financial resource to someone who would
rather put it towards a suitable charity. Decanting
may also provide the ability to keep documents viable
in response to changes in State or Federal tax laws.
Since 1997, Alaska has been a leader in adopting laws
to improve estate and tax planning options for both
Alaskans and non-Alaskans. House Bill 208 is a
continuation of this leadership as it provides
expansion and clarification to our existing statutes.
House Bill 208 focusses on expanding and clarifying
four key areas of our State Statutes surrounding
irrevocable trusts.
The four areas are Decanting of Trusts, Powers of
Appointment, traceability of Trust Assets for Tax
Efficiency, and Clarification of Trustees' Specific
Powers. These four areas have since, and in some cases
prior to, 1997 been forced to be decided by a Judge.
Providing the ability for these four areas to be
clearly outlined by the original settlor, and by
providing beneficiaries the ability to adapt to
unforeseen events, we continue to provide an
environment where irrevocable trusts, like our State
and National Constitution, may be amended to provide,
or not provide, in clearly outlined, yet commonly
unforeseen, circumstances.
Keeping all of these things in mind, I humbly ask for
your support in keeping Alaska a leader in innovation
in the trust industry as the financial industry
continues it's perpetually changing mentality by
passing House Bill 208.
2:21:23 PM
SHAE SEGART, Staff, Representative DeLena Goodwin Johnson,
Alaska State Legislature, paraphrased the PowerPoint
presentation, titled "House Bill 208," as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Why is House Bill 208 being introduced? What problem
is being solved?
House bill 208 seeks to expand, and clarify current
State Statutes surrounding one of our most successful
industries. The piece of legislation in front of you
is seeking to continue the process started in 1997 by
giving the State of Alaska a competitive advantage to
once again be the best jurisdiction for Alaskans, and
non-alaskans, to keep their trusts and estates in.
Trust and Estate planning is one of these things that
commonly gets overlooked in the search for industries
that really strengthen our economy. We saw a value to
this industry in 1997 when the Alaska State
Legislature passed the Alaska Trust Act which quickly
propelled our State to the top of the nation's ranking
in Estate and Tax Planning Industry. It holds vast
benefits to Alaskans as well as financial institutions
in Alaska.
I would like to point you all to a few documents in
your bill packet, the first one, as we go forward to
the four main areas of this bill is a matrix what you
decant, what happens when you decant, and some kind of
hypotheticals in moving forward. The other one is a
trust and estate glossary, it has some helpful terms.
As we move through this law that has a vernacular all
to itself, and it is a very nuanced part of our state
statute books. The next one would be our ranking
comparatively to other states in the trust and estate
planning industry. We are currently number 7, we used
to be farther up on this list when we passed the
Alaska Trust Act in 1997, and have since sunk in the
rankings.
2:23:30 PM
Online I have Matthew Blattmachr of Peak Trust
Company, who will be able to answer any really
professional questions that get really technical into
the trust profession and industry. Going forth, there
are four areas where this bill really seeks to add
expansion, as well as clarify in our existing
statutes.
Since 1997, Alaska has been a leader in adopting laws
to improve estate and tax planning options for both
Alaskan and non-Alaskans. House Bill 208 is a
continuation of this leadership as it adds expansion
and clarification to our existing statutes.
Decanting. Decanting, of course, is the act of pouring
liquid from one container to another as often occurs
with wine. When one trust pays (or pours) its assets
to another trust, this too is referred to as
decanting. Decanting is used to correct drafting
errors, reduce costs of trust administration, enhance
tax effects and many other reasons. While Alaska has
had decanting statutes for nearly 20 years, House Bill
208 would provide additional flexibility and
clarification to this great statutory provision.
Decanting is commonly used by Alaskans who are looking
to update their trust documents. Additionally, non-
residents bring their business to Alaska because of
this progressive statute.
2:25:02 PM
Powers of Appointment. One of the most powerful estate
planning tools is to grant someone, such as a
beneficiary, a "power of appointment," which allows
that person the right to specify where property will
pass at certain times, such as when the beneficiary
dies.
The proposal would clarify certain aspects of Alaska
law relating to these powers so they can be used more
efficiently for tax and other reasons.
Tracing of Trust's Assets for Tax Efficiency. Trusts
are often created by more than one settlor. Under
Internal Revenue Code Section 671, a settlor is
treated as the owner of the portion of the trust to
which the settlor contributed, if the settlor reserves
certain powers over the trust property.
Under AS 13.36.169, a trustee may divide a trust into
one or more separate trusts if certain tax elections
are made. However, the statute does not contemplate
dividing a trust into separate portions when there are
multiple settlors and treating each separate portion
as being contributed to solely by one settlor.
Although a trust instrument might grant this power,
Alaska law does not.
The proposal would allow a trustee who has traced
contributions to a trust, as well as earnings and
reinvestments on such contributions, to divide the
trust into one more separate trusts of which each
settlor would be treated as the sole settlor of the
trust as to the portion to which he or she
contributed. This power would provide more clarity as
to the tax treatment of trusts with more than one
settlor. No other state appears to have a similar law
in effect at this time. This bill would help Alaska
remain at the forefront of trust legislation.
2:27:04 PM
Clarification of Certain Trustee Powers. Alaska law
grants trustees certain powers. Among these are the
right to acquire insurance to protect the trust from
claims from third parties; however, certain aspects of
the powers are not clear.
The proposal would clarify Alaska law to say that a
trustee can acquire insurance to protect the trust
assets from claims of third parties and the trustee
from third party and beneficiary claims and to charge
the premiums to the trust.
These and many other Alaska laws the Legislature has
enacted have benefitted Alaskans, has resulted in
millions of dollars being deposited in financial
institutions in the state which, in turn, have
provided funding for Alaska businesses, and provided
significant work for many Alaskans. We hope to see
this success continue for years to come.
2:28:58 PM
MATHEW BLATTMACHR, Peak Trust Company, offered that in 1997, the
legislature passed the Alaska Trust Act, which put Alaska not
only as the first state, but made Alaska the premier
jurisdiction for trust and estate planning. These laws were
powerful and created a desire from other states to copy Alaska's
laws in that this would be a good industry to have in their
state, it's a clean industry, it doesn't require any outlay from
the state in order to bring it to a state, or requires maintain
the industry. Therefore, he said, it created a competitive
environment with options for clients and their advisors, and in
the event Alaska wants to maintain its standing, it must
frequently consider additional bills that not only clarify but
add to existing statutes.
[MR. SIEGERT read each slide on the PowerPoint word for word,
please review each slide for his testimony.]
2:30:41 PM
MR. SIEGERT turned to slide 2, "4 Areas of Concern" and
paraphrased as follows:
4 Areas of Concern, Decanting of Trusts, Powers of
Appointment, Traceability of Trust Assets for Tax
Efficiency, and Clarification of Trustees' Specific
Powers
MR. SIEGERT turned to slide 3, "Helpful Definitions" and advised
these definitions are not located in the glossary.
MR. SIEGERT turned to slide 4, "Decanting a Trust," questions
posed to Mr. Blattmachr, and paraphrased as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Decanting a Trust. Why would someone want to decant a
trust? We already have decanting statute, isn't that
enough?! What instances are most common that call for
a trust to be decanted?
2:32:04 PM
MR. BLATTMACHR answered there are a variety of reasons someone
would want to decant, and advised that the matrix provided
within the materials assists in setting up some examples as to
how decanting can help. Decanting, he explained, may include a
potential scrivener's error in the original document, and
because the issue was dealing with irrevocable trusts and there
was no way to revoke them, the technical way would be to decant.
An additional reason for decanting may be changes in tax law,
and pointed to the shift in the national presidential regime
which may bring about tax law changes, thereby, rendering some
planning documents as inefficient or ineffective. The current
decanting statute is almost 20 years old, he described, and due
to advancements in decanting and estate planning law, this bill
would add some flexibility for Alaskan practitioners to match
what other states currently allow. He explained that most of
these instances are brought up due to a certain need to amend
the document in some manner, and is done so for the best
interests of the beneficiaries, whether it was updating
provisions in the document or changing dispositive provisions,
he explained.
2:34:01 PM
MR. SIEGERT turned to slide 5, "Sec. 29, 30" having to do with
decanting, and paraphrased as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 29 Adds a new section 13.36.380 (Distribution of
principal)
(a) Authorizes a court to authorize a trustee to
invade the principal of a trust if the court makes
certain findings
(b) Limits the application of this section to an
irrevocable trust for which the trust instrument
provides for certain distributions
Section 30
(a) indicates that a second power, as defined in the
subsection, created by a first power may be validly
exercised to postpone the vesting of property without
regard to the creation of the first power
(b) states that if a first power is exercised to
create a second power as defined in the subsection,
the second power is not valid unless all property
interests vest not later than 1000 years after the
creation of the first power.
(c) defines "first power" for the section.
MR. SIEGERT turned to slide 6, "Powers of Appointment,"
questions for Mr. Blattmachr, and paraphrased as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Powers of Appointment. Do Powers of Appointment have
to do with more than just the distribution of assets?
Who holds the Power of Appointment in a trust? Does
this bill change that to more people? Is the Power of
Appointment a Fiduciary or Non-fiduciary power? Why
do they matter?
MR. BLATTMACHR responded that powers of appointment can do more
than the distribution of assets because that provision broadly
gives the beneficiary the ability to appoint assets for a
variety of reasons, such as winning the lottery and appointing
the assets to a charity, putting assets into a trust for a child
with substance abuse problems. The powers of appointment can be
used for tax planning reasons, for example, to pull the assets
out of someone's estate and into their estate. Typically, he
advised, the powers of appointment is given to the beneficiary
of the document, although sometimes they can be further
assigned, and the bill does not change who is appointed or the
number of people. He offered that powers of appointment can be
held in a fiduciary or non-fiduciary power depending upon the
document and the power itself, and they matter as they increase
flexibility within trust documents.
2:37:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to slide 5, Section 30, subsection (b),
which read as follows:
(b) states that if a first power is exercised to
create a second power as defined in the subsection,
the second power is not valid unless all property
interests vest not later than 1000 years after the
creation of the first power.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted there is a rule of perpetuity making it 1,000
years after the creation of the first power, and asked the
justification for 1,000 years.
MR. SIEGERT answered that under current statute [AS 34.27.051]
there is a statutorily protected section of 1,000 years of
perpetuity, and this does not change the common 21 year rule of
perpetuity. He advised there are many states with expanded
rules against perpetuities and Alaska is one state that contains
1,000 years.
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that that is existing statute and
surmised that nothing was being changed today with respect to
trusts.
MR. SIEGERT agreed.
2:39:15 PM
MR. SIEGERT turned to slides 7-12, "Sections 1, 5-7, 10-22
(Powers of Appointment), and read each slide word-for-word.
[Please see PowerPoint "House Bill 208."]
2:45:15 PM
MR. SIEGERT turned to slide 13, "Traceability of Assets,"
questions for Mr. Blattmachr to answer, and paraphrased as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Traceability of Assets. Isn't this just a way of
avoiding taxes? Why don't we already have a statute
protecting this already; if it is such a big deal?
MR. BLATTMACHR responded that traceability of assets has nothing
to do with avoiding taxes, in that it provides practitioners a
provision with which to rely when unwinding a trust and
separating assets. For example, practitioners can rely upon
this provision when "planning the event" and they have multiple
grantors of a single trust, for whatever reason, and would like
to separate the assets of the trust. This provision is not a
big deal, but it adds clarity to Alaska law, he commented.
2:46:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP surmised that this is technical area of law
and some of these terms should be discussed for clarity, such as
the definitions of fiduciary versus non-fiduciary.
MR. BLATTMACHR responded that fiduciary versus non-fiduciary
comes down to who holds that power. In the event a person is
already acting in a fiduciary capacity, such as a trustee, they
typically hold a fiduciary power. In the event they hold that
power as a beneficiary and are not in a fiduciary capacity to
begin with, typically it is a non-fiduciary power. Generally,
he explained, the entity or person that holds the power dictates
whether it is fiduciary or non-fiduciary.
2:48:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to non-fiduciary, and asked that
when a person is the holder of a non-fiduciary power, that means
the person is not a beneficiary, the person is holding it in
trust for another person.
MR. BLATTMACHR said, "No, not necessarily." For example, in the
event Peak Trust Company held a fiduciary power of appointment
over trust assets, it would hold that in a fiduciary capacity,
most likely. Wherein, he said, the Peak Trust Company would be
held to the same standard with that power as with any other
action or inaction. He related that for a beneficiary holding
that power, they typically do not have to hold it in a fiduciary
capacity. There may be standards to who they can appoint it to,
such as a defined class of beneficiaries, and there may not be,
that goes into different types of powers. He advised that they
do not have a fiduciary duty when exercising that power, but
again, if they are a beneficiary, they would be appointing the
assets for their benefit.
2:49:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that he would research the issue a bit
on his own, and asked that "invasion of trust" be explained.
MR. BLATTMACHR explained that invasion is typically a term that
defines the appointment of assets from one trust to another
trust as far as decanting. Typically, he said, it is not
separated between whether that was income or principle, it is
that the current trust was being invaded, pulling assets out and
putting them into a new trust.
2:50:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP surmised that it has nothing to do with
getting into earnings of a trust versus getting into an
appropriation or a withdrawal of the principle of the trust, it
doesn't break it down in that manner. He further surmised that
an invasion means taking anything out of a trust.
MR. BLATTMACHR responded in the sense of decanting, yes.
Typically, the entirety of the original trust is put into a new
trust. Although, he commented, that might change when decanting
one trust and separating it out into three trusts, one trust for
the benefit of three different beneficiaries and take a pro rata
share. He agreed that it is typically, not necessarily the
definition of principle versus income.
2:51:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked that the tax structure, currently
in place in Alaska, be explained, whether they are all taxed
equally, and whether there are different structures.
MR. SIEGERT deferred to attorney Richard Hompesch.
2:53:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER noted that different types of trusts are
available, and requested that tax liability structures be
explained within the different trusts set up in the State of
Alaska.
2:53:54 PM
RICHARD HOMPESCH, Attorney, Hompesch Evans & Averett, advised
that Alaska does not tax the income of trusts or estates under
current law, trusts and estates are subject to federal income
and transfer taxes. He advised that he was testifying today on
his own behalf, and not on behalf of any party.
2:54:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER specifically asked whether all trusts tax
in the exact same manner, whether it be a federal or state tax
structure.
MR. HOMPESCH replied that the taxation of trust income varies
from state-to-state, and the federal taxation income and
transfer tax of trusts is generally the same. There are
exceptions, some trusts are exempt from federal income taxation,
known as Charitable Trusts, but most of the trusts being
discussed today may be decanted into another trust and are
subject to federal income taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER referred to allowing decanting due to
innovations in trusts or changes in the tax code, for example,
and asked whether it would be possible for a person to decant
their current trust into a new trust that would suddenly occur
into a tax liability.
MR. HOMPESCH answered "Not to my knowledge, no."
2:56:23 PM
MR. SIEGERT turned to slide 14, "23 - Dividing trust into
separate portions for income tax purposes," and paraphrased as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
This section adds a new subsection to read:
Unless a governing instrument specifically refers to
this section and provides otherwise, if a trust is
created by more than one settlor, and if a trustee
keeps records tracing contributions, a trustee may
divide the trust into one or more separate trusts for
which a specific settlor shall be treated as the sole
settlor of the separate portion of the trust to which
the settlor contributed. A trustee may exercise this
power at any time, whether before, or, or after a
settlor's death. A trustee may exercise this power
whether or not the trust was initially governed by the
law of this state or the situs of a trust was moved to
this state.
2:57:36 PM
MR. SIEGART turned to slide 15, "Clarification of Specific
Powers of a Trustee," having to do with clarification of
specific powers of a trustee, and paraphrased as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
What are Specific Powers of a Trustee? Can't specific
powers be given by the trust?
MR. BLATTMACHR advised that under Alaska law, the specific
powers of a trustee are quite broad and include anything that
might be reasonably expected for a trustee to perform to
administer a trust. He further advised there are some specific
definitions under Alaska law that can be further clarified under
the trust documents. In addition, he explained, Alaska law
allows for different trustees to hold different powers, and for
certain powers to be taken away from trustees. Specific powers
can be given by the trust and give more flexibility to the
trustee than what Alaska law allows, or it can also restrict
abilities of trustees in the document, he explained.
2:58:57 PM
MR. SIEGERT turned to slide 16, "Section 2," and paraphrased as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Specific Powers of Trustees. Except as otherwise
provided by this chapter, in addition to the powers
conferred by the terms of the trust, a trustee may
perform all actions necessary to accomplish the proper
management, investment, and distribution of the trust
property, including the power?
This is followed by the 29 powers that are
statutorily protected.
(17) to insure the property of the trust against
damage or loss and to insure the trustee against
liability with respect to third persons or
beneficiaries of the trust;
2:59:29 PM
MR. SIEGERT turned to slide 17, "Section 3," having to do with
the clarification of specific powers of trustees, and
paraphrased as follows [original punctuation provided]:
(b) A trustee may pay as a charge against trust
property the cost incurred to perform an action
authorized under (a) of this section
2:59:50 PM
MR. SIEGERT turned to slide 18, "Sections 25-28 (Definitions),"
changes in definition to accommodate new sections, and
paraphrased as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 25 - Changes definition to accommodate new subsections
of Definition
Sec. 26 - (b)(2) updates to include new legal term "power"
instead of authority. Deletes clarification of "trustee" to
agree with powers given in the proposal.
Sec. 27 - includes a revocable trust in definition of
"invaded trust"
Sec. 28 - Adds definition of beneficiary
3:00:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP offered appreciation for the technical bill
and acknowledged the capacity of Alaska to be a vanguard for
setting up trusts in estates because it is a significant
industry in and of itself. He offered his understanding that
clean-up keeps the state in a leadership role, and asked when
the committee would hear from the Department of Law.
CHAIR CLAMAN advised the bill would not move today, and asked
that the Department of Law be available during the next bill
hearing.
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 208.
3:02:36 PM
BETH CHAPMAN, Attorney, Faulkner Banfield, advised she has
practiced in estate planning and the special needs planning area
for the past 29 years, and supports HB 208. She pointed out
that not only will the legislation continue to improve Alaska's
laws in bringing trust business to the state, but it will also
help Alaskans. The decanting provisions, in particular, are
used quite frequently to help Alaskan families' correct trusts
and protect beneficiaries. These amendments continue to provide
flexibility and more opportunities to help their, mostly,
Alaskan clients, and respond to changed circumstances in a cost
efficient manner so that the court system was not involved, she
said. Oftentimes, these trusts are written when children are
young and may terminate at a certain age, and that child may
later develop disabilities or sometimes substance abuse
problems. These laws allow the correction of those trusts, to
make sure the funds stay in trust for the individual, provide a
safety net, and give their clients certainty that their families
will be cared for in the future.
3:04:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Chapman to speak to the
nature of the trust industry in Alaska, the industries attracted
to the state with the most appealing statutory environment, the
attractiveness of Alaska to the industry, and the scope of the
industry relative to other states.
MS. CHAPMAN responded that the industry has been comprised of
various components since 1997, the financial industry, the trust
companies, and the financial institutions that receive the trust
funds required to be deposited in Alaska for non-residents to
use the trust laws. Since 1997, Alaska had been the premiere
jurisdiction and it was the first jurisdiction to start
modernizing trust laws, other states started to compete and the
states copied whatever was done in Alaska, in particular,
Delaware, South Dakota, and Nevada. Over the years, she said,
"we have tried to limit" how many times they go before the
legislature to seek modernization of these laws, and [due to
those efforts] other states leaped over [Alaska]. Several
rankings are provided, one was included in the materials
regarding decanting, and Alaska previously was at the top, but
it is no longer at the top. She said, "We are trying to strike
a balance" that will continue to attract those trusts to Alaska,
and also continue to ensure that Alaskans want to keep their
funds in Alaska because, she explained, similar to anyone,
Alaskans will look for the best laws for their particular
financial needs.
3:06:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS described that the notion of
modernizing laws was interesting and it suggested that the laws
are neutral and merely reacting to the changing financial
industry or evolving technologies. In the event his description
was correct, he asked whether the trust industry had considered
trying to get around the legislative process if the revisions
were merely technical, and whether it considered regulations
with a board. He then asked, if that was not the case, what the
points of pushback were, and why had not all 50 states adopted
laws appropriately modern.
MS. CHAPMAN reminded Representative Kreiss-Tomkins that she is
an attorney in private practice, and while she drafts trusts,
she is not part of the trust industry and was appearing today as
a private practitioner. The trust industry, whether it be the
Peak Trust Company or other trust companies in Alaska, are
regulated by regulation and one state department. She related
that when she first started practicing, the state did not have a
trust code and when she had a question she had to look to other
states to find the answer. She said, "What we are trying to do"
is create a statutory framework offering practitioners, clients,
and anyone using those laws, some certainty as to what they are,
with some standards. Other states are starting to also move
forward with new changes, she opined, as 22 states adopted the
decanting statutes, and Alaska was the second state in 1997.
Also, more and more states are moving toward the repeal of the
rule against perpetuity and states are looking to make it more
assessable for people to use trusts as part of their estate
plan, she explained.
3:09:44 PM
JONATHAN BATTMACHR, Attorney, advised he is a member of the New
York, California, and Alaska bar associations, and is currently
retired. He described HB 208 as "excellent" in that it will
help Alaska maintain its position as one of the premiere trust
jurisdictions in the country.
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 208.
[HB 208 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB208 ver A 4.10.17.PDF |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Sponsor Statement 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Sectional Analysis ver A 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 PowerPoint Sectional 4.10.17.pptx |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Decanting Matrix 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Decanting Rankings 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Trust Estate Glossary 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Letter Peak Trust Company 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Letter Manley & Brautigam 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Letter ABA 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Supporting Document-Letter Northern Law Group 4.10.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB208 Fiscal Note LAW-CIV 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 208 |
| HB175 ver A 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB175 Sponsor Statement 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB175 Sectional Analysis ver A 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB175 Additional Document-Legal Memo 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB175 Supporting Document-Supplemental Information 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB 175 Supporting Document-Letters of Support 4.11.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB 175 Opposing Document-Letters of Opposition 4.11.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB175 Additional Document-Letter on Congressional Consent 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB175 Fiscal Note OOG-DOE 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 175 |
| HB170 ver J 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Sponsor Statement 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Sectional Analysis 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Repealers List 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 DCCED Whitepaper 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Supporting Document-Letter ANCSA Regional Association 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Supporting Document-Letter NASAA 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 HJUD Slide Presentation 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Additional Document-Enforcement Comparison Chart 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Additional Document-Sponsor's Reply to House Judiciary Committee Questions 4.11.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Additional Document-Violations in Statute 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Amendments #1-3 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Amendments #1-3 HJUD Final Votes 4.12.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Fiscal Note DCCED-DBS 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB170 Fiscal Note DHSS-SDSA 4.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 4/7/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 170 |