Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/16/2004 01:20 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 344 - TRUSTS/ESTATES/PROPERTY TRANSFERS Number 0033 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 344, "An Act relating to the Uniform Probate Code and trusts, including pleadings, orders, nonprobate assets, estates of decedents, minors, protected persons, incapacitated persons, guardians, conservators, trustees, foreign trusts, principal and income, and transfer restrictions; relating to corporate voting trusts; and providing for an effective date." Number 0073 REPRESENTATIVE OGG moved to adopt the proposed House committee substitute (HCS) for SB 344, Version 23-LS1694\H, Bannister, 4/16/04, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version H was before the committee. Number 0094 BRIAN HOVE, Staff to Senator Ralph Seekins, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, on behalf of Senator Seekins, relayed that members of the group that created the bill were on line to answer questions. REPRESENTATIVE GARA directed attention to page 5, lines 5-10, subsection (b), which read: (b) If a trustee petitions a court for an order approving a report that adequately discloses the existence of a potential claim, serves the report on all beneficiaries to be bound by the report, and gives the beneficiaries at least 90 days' notice of the court proceeding, all potential claims of the beneficiaries against the trustee are barred unless the claims are served on the trustee and filed with the court within 60 days after the beneficiaries receive the report. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether the beneficiaries could still bring up a claim during the proceeding mentioned in subsection (b) if the 60-day deadline has passed. Number 0270 DAVID G. SHAFTEL, Attorney at Law, Law Offices of David G. Shaftel, PC, replied that according to his understanding of subsection (b), the claim would have to be asserted during the 60-day period; that claim could then be resolved in that proceeding or in a separate proceeding. He surmised that if there are amendments to the claim or matters that a court would consider to be associated with the claim, the court could consider those even if the 60-day deadline has passed. In response to a further question, he said: If you're having a formal court proceeding and you have notified the beneficiary that that is occurring, ... they would need to bring those claims within 60 days. ... But certainly I would expect that courts would allow for a broad variety of amendments to refine the claim. If the claim was, for example, ... a matter relating to a certain asset or ... [the fact] that there's an asset missing or these numbers don't look right on this account, then that could well be refined after the 60-day period, but they [would] have brought the general essence of the claim within the 60-day period. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Mr. Shaftel whether it would be alright to add language at the end of proposed subsection (b) to indicate that a claim could also be brought during the proceeding even if the proceeding occurred after the 60-day period. MR. SHAFTEL replied: In our discussions about this procedure we felt that for there to be a meaningful court proceeding, that both sides would need to know what the claims are before the proceeding began so that they could respond to them and hopefully resolve them at that point. So that's why we put in that prior to the actual date of the proceeding, there'd be a cutoff, and that's why it's 90 days with a 60-day cutoff, so that the trustee would know, generally, what claims are being brought, so the trustee could respond to them at that hearing. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to Section 7 of Version H and asked Mr. Shaftel whether it meets his needs. MR. SHAFTEL said yes. Number 0688 REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, on page 5, line 14, replace "12 months" with "two years". He indicated that this change was amenable to those who brought the concept of the bill forth. MR. HOVE said if the experts in the industry are amenable to Amendment 1, so is the sponsor. MR. SHAFTEL said that his group discussed this proposed change at length and decided that as long as it wouldn't delay passage of the bill, they were amenable to it. Number 0811 REPRESENTATIVE OGG objected to Amendment 1. CHAIR McGUIRE clarified that Amendment 1 would change "12 months" to "24 months". Number 0837 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gara, Gruenberg, and McGuire voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Ogg and Holm voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 3-2. Number 0846 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report the proposed HCS for SB 344, Version 23-LS1694\H, Bannister, 4/16/04, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying [zero] fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS SB 344(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|