Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120
03/30/2009 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB137 | |
| HB108 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 30, 2009
1:14 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 137
"An Act relating to an interstate compact on educational
opportunity for military children; amending Rules 4 and 24,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED HB 137 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 108
"An Act relating to real property foreclosures, to the sale of
property on execution, and to deeds of trust."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 137
SHORT TITLE: COMPACT: EDUCATION OF MILITARY CHILDREN
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL
02/16/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/09 (H) EDC, JUD, FIN
03/20/09 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/20/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/20/09 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/23/09 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/23/09 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/23/09 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
03/23/09 (H) EDC RPT 5DP 1NR
03/23/09 (H) DP: MUNOZ, WILSON, GARDNER, BUCH,
SEATON
03/23/09 (H) NR: KELLER
03/30/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 108
SHORT TITLE: PROPERTY FORECLOSURES AND EXECUTIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) RAMRAS
02/02/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/09 (H) L&C, JUD
02/23/09 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
02/23/09 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/09 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/13/09 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/13/09 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/16/09 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/16/09 (H) Moved CSHB 108(L&C) Out of Committee
03/16/09 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/18/09 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 1DP 5NR
03/18/09 (H) DP: CHENAULT
03/18/09 (H) NR: BUCH, COGHILL, NEUMAN, HOLMES,
OLSON
03/25/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/25/09 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/30/09 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff
Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 137 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Coghill.
LARRY LeDOUX, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 137.
EDDIE JEANS, Director
School Finance and Facilities Section
Department of Education and Early Development (EED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 137.
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent of Schools
Anchorage School District (ASD)
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 137.
THOMAS HINTON, Senior State Liaison
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Military
Community and Family Policy
United States Department of Defense (DOD)
Fredericksburg, Virginia
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 137.
RICHARD L. MASTERS, Special Counsel
National Center for Interstate Compacts (NCIC)
The Council of State Governments (CSG)
Lexington, Kentucky
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 137.
JANE W. PIERSON, Staff
Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 108 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Ramras.
ROBERT H. SCHMIDT, Attorney at Law
Groh Eggers, LLC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns about HB 108.
STEPHEN ROUTH, Attorney at Law
Routh Crabtree, apc
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comment during discussion of
HB 108.
BRYAN BUTCHER, Director
Government Affairs & Public Relations
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during discussion
of HB 108.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:14:49 PM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:14 p.m. Representatives Ramras, Gatto,
Lynn, Gruenberg, and Holmes were present at the call to order.
Representative Coghill arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 137 - COMPACT: EDUCATION OF MILITARY CHILDREN
1:15:02 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 137, "An Act relating to an interstate compact on
educational opportunity for military children; amending Rules 4
and 24, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
1:15:39 PM
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff, Representative John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Coghill,
relayed that HB 137 would eliminate some of the barriers faced
by the children of military personnel as they transition from
one school system to another; such children, between
kindergarten and 12th grade, might move an average of six to
nine times. Such moves can be stressful, and adoption of the
compact contained in HB 139 could ease some of that stress,
thereby being of benefit to over 12,000 school-age children of
military personnel. Thus far, [13] states have adopted the
compact and [20] states have pending legislation.
MS. LIDSTER, referring to the sectional analysis included in
members' packets, explained that Section 1 of HB 137 would add
to Title 14 a new Chapter 34, pertaining to the Interstate
Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children.
Article I [of Chapter 34's proposed AS 14.34.010, which contains
18 articles,] outlines the purpose of the compact as being to
remove barriers to educational success imposed on children of
military families by facilitating enrollment, placement, and
timely graduation; by providing enforcement of rules, uniform
collection and sharing of information; and by promoting
coordination, flexibility, and cooperation among member states.
Article II defines the terms used throughout the compact.
Article III outlines which children the compact shall apply to.
Article IV addresses educational records and enrollment,
outlining how sending and receiving states shall handle a
student's official and unofficial records - with the compact's
Interstate Commission determining what information shall be
included in the latter - and the timeline for handling a
student's records; providing for a 30-day grace period for
immunizations; and addressing entrance age and grade level.
MS. LIDSTER explained that Article V addresses course placement,
education program placement, special education services,
placement flexibility, and absences related to deployment.
Article VI addresses eligibility for enrollment and for
extracurricular participation. Article VII addresses
graduation, providing procedures for waivers, exit exams, and
transfers during a student's senior year. Article VIII
addresses coordination among a compact member state's
government, local education, and military agencies via the
establishment of a state council or existing body for that
purpose, and outlines the membership of such council or body.
Article IX addresses the creation of an Interstate Commission on
Educational Opportunity for Military Children and its
responsibilities, powers, and duties, detailing its membership,
voting rights, meetings, executive committee, bylaws and rules,
data collection, and a process for reporting alleged violations.
MS. LIDSTER explained that Article X lists the powers and duties
of the Interstate Commission, including dispute resolution,
promulgation of rules, issuing advisory opinions, enforcing
compliance, and others related to establishing, running, and
supporting the state councils at a national level. Article XI
pertains to the organization and operation of the Interstate
Commission, providing structure for it to organize, establish
bylaws, set up committees, and establish procedures for
meetings, and providing for startup rules for the initial
administration of the compact. Article XII gives the Interstate
Commission rulemaking authority and guidelines, and a provision
for judicial review of proposed rules. Article XIII addresses
oversight, enforcement, and dispute resolution, charging the
three branches of government with the purpose and intent of the
compact, stating that the Interstate Commission shall receive
all service of process and has standing to intervene, addressing
the consequences of default, authorizing dispute resolution and
mediation, and providing enforcement powers, including the
authority to initiate legal action.
MS. LIDSTER explained that Article XIV addresses the financing
of the Interstate Commission by providing a method by which it
may pay reasonable expenses, collect annual assessments, and be
audited. Article XV addresses membership, the effective date,
and amendments to the compact; specifically, membership is open
to all states, the compact become effective when 10 states enact
it into law, and amendments may be proposed by the Interstate
Commission and only become effective when enacted into law by
all member states. Article XVI addresses withdrawal from,
reinstatement to, and the dissolution of the compact. Article
XVII pertains to severability and construction, with all
provisions being severable, with the compact being liberally
construed, and with nothing prohibiting the applicability of
other interstate compacts. Article XVIII pertains to the
binding effect of the compact and the actions of the Interstate
Commission, stating that nothing in the compact prevents
enforcement of any other law not inconsistent with the compact,
that all laws inconsistent with the compact are superseded by
the compact to the extent of the conflict, that all rules and
bylaws promulgated by the Interstate Commission are binding, and
that any provisions that exceed constitutional limits are
ineffective to the extent of the conflict.
MS. LIDSTER explained that Section 1's proposed AS 14.34.020
establishes the compact administrator and the duties of that
office; proposed AS 14.34.030 establishes the state council as a
subcommittee; proposed AS 14.34.040 authorizes the adoption of
regulations; and proposed AS 14.34.090 provides for a short
title. Section 2 provides for indirect court rule amendments to
Rule 4 and Rule 24(b) of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure.
[Section 3 and 4 address conditional effects, and Section 5
addresses the effective date.]
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN concurred that having to transfer his
children to a new school every couple of years while he served
in the military was difficult.
1:29:51 PM
LARRY LeDOUX, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), noting that he's been a principal at both a
high school and an elementary school in a military community,
characterized HB 137 as representing strong common sense, and
concurred that having to change schools every few years can be
stressful on military families and on the children themselves as
they try to navigate the new school system and become part of
the new community. The school districts serving military
communities in Alaska are very supportive, and most districts
already follow the proposed guidelines; the compact, therefore,
he surmised, is necessary so that other states can treat the
transferring children of military personnel with more respect.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX then provided an example wherein one student
who'd been transferred five days before graduating from high
school couldn't receive any credit from his past school because
he left early, and characterized that example as illustrative of
the need for the proposed compact. He noted that the issue of
immunizations also creates a dilemma when records aren't
transferred in a timely manner, because regulations say that
proof of immunization is required; although most principals will
find a way to get transferred children into school, they
shouldn't have to go to those lengths.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX, in response to questions, said that the
bill won't impact how school districts deal with "special needs"
children because federal law - the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) - already addresses that issue; that
although some issues might arise during implementation, he
doesn't believe complying with the proposed compact will be
burdensome - again, most schools in Alaska already do comply;
and that he believes the compact would apply to children who are
being homeschooled under "an Alaska sponsored program."
1:37:25 PM
EDDIE JEANS, Director, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Department of Education and Early Development (EED), in response
to comments, clarified that it would depend on whether a child
who is being homeschooled is enrolled in the public school
system - if so, then the compact would apply, regardless of
whether the child is coming to Alaska or leaving Alaska. The
compact would not apply, however, to children who are not part
of the public school system.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the compact would
conflict with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX said he doesn't believe it would.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the compact would apply
to "pre-kindergarten" children.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX said many states have a variety of early
learning programs but nothing consistent from one state to
another, so it would be very difficult to define a relationship
between such programs.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised, then, that having the compact
apply to children who have not yet entered kindergarten would be
impractical at this time.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX concurred, adding that such would be the
case until there is more consistency between states with regard
to their early learning programs.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether there is a plan to expand
the compact so that it would apply to children other than just
those of military personnel.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that the representative from
the Council of State Governments (CSG) would be better able to
address to that question.
1:40:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to the language on page 8,
lines 26-29, raised the issue of possibly amending that language
to clarify that a student placed in the care of a non-custodial
parent or other person standing in loco parentis could attend a
school in that person's jurisdiction.
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX, in response to a comment, offered his
belief that the proposed compact reflects how all students who
transfer to Alaska are treated.
MR. JEANS mentioned that the Board of Education and Early
Development supports HB 137, and that the EED has received
[letters of] support from "Kodiak, Anchorage, and Sitka" as well
as the Alaska School Activities Association (ASAA). He offered
his belief that there is a lot of support for [the compact].
COMMISSIONER LeDOUX, in response to questions, surmised that the
compact is intended to apply to the children of military
personnel who are transitioning between two communities, and
that as a whole, the compact would provide school administrators
across the country with guidelines by which to make sound
decisions regarding the children of military personnel, though
it might not cover every possibility.
1:49:47 PM
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent of Schools, Anchorage School
District (ASD), Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), relayed that
the Anchorage school board recently passed a resolution in
support of the compact and believes that it would
institutionalize most of the practices that [Alaska's schools]
have tried to implement over the years, thereby making those
practices part of state law. She offered her belief that the
compact would go a long way towards reducing the stress placed
on military families, particularly during times of deployment,
characterizing the resulting transfers as being in a different
category than normal transfers, which don't involve one's
parents going to war. She offered her hope that the committee
would move the bill from committee, indicating that [the school
board] has heard examples of how important it is for the
children of military personnel to be able to become part of the
school structure and involved in school activities. In
conclusion, she said, "We think this is the right thing to do."
MS. COMEAU, in response to questions, said that [the law]
clearly allows school districts to waive the exit exam
requirement if a student has passed an exit exam in another
state; that the [Anchorage School District] has been able to
"work through" all the various state history requirements as
long as students transferring in have completed the history
requirements of the state they're transferring from; and that
[the Anchorage school district] doesn't see anything negative
about [the compact].
1:54:54 PM
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Representative Coghill.]
THOMAS HINTON, Senior State Liaison, Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense Military Community and Family Policy,
United States Department of Defense (DOD), said he appreciates
that Alaska is considering this legislation, particularly given
that it addresses one of the issues that most affects the
military community, and that it's been exciting to see the
[positive] response [to the proposed compact] across the
country.
[Representative Coghill returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
MR. HINTON noted that in addition to 11 other states, both
Mississippi and Virginia recently adopted similar legislation.
This compact, which can now be activated, was developed over a
long period of time with the help of many, including the CSG, he
relayed, and characterized it as the right approach, fulfilling
the need for coordination among the states and school districts
when the children of military personnel change schools. He too
remarked that with the variety of early learning programs that
different states have, it would be very difficult to define a
relationship between such programs.
2:02:29 PM
RICHARD L. MASTERS, Special Counsel, National Center for
Interstate Compacts (NCIC), The Council of State Governments
(CSG), relayed that whenever interstate problems arise, the CSG
is in favor of interstate cooperation whenever possible as
opposed to federal intervention, and that the CSG is pleased
that 13 states have now adopted the compact. He mentioned that
close to 90 percent of the nation's military installations and
personnel are located in approximately 20 states, and so
although the goal is to have all 50 states join the compact,
most of the [recruitment] efforts have been directed first
towards those states with the largest military populations and
most military installations, including Alaska - which ranks
about number five.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Representative Coghill.]
MR. MASTERS explained that the goal was to develop a dynamic,
deliberately-broad mechanism to address the four areas of most
concern to students of military personnel: enrollment,
placement and attendance, eligibility, and graduation. The
provisions of the compact are intended to provide broad guidance
towards a reasonable accommodation, to "level the playing field"
so that students of military personnel are not penalized simply
for being part of a family that's chosen to serve the country
via the military. Although the compact may not address every
situation, it does contain the flexibility for limited
rulemaking by individual states so that they may address
specific issues themselves. For example, the issue raised
earlier about the language on page 8, lines 26-29, could perhaps
be addressed should doing so prove necessary.
MR. MASTERS, referring to earlier questions and comments,
concurred that the proposed compact won't conflict with the NCLB
Act, and that the compact won't address homeschooled students
who are not part of the public school system but will address
those who are, and relayed that the CSG is interested in
pursuing a similar mechanism that would apply to children other
than those of military personnel, but is not interested in
altering the compact proposed by HB 137 to that effect because
it would result in two different agreements.
[Representative Coghill returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
MR. MASTERS, in response to a question, said the name of the
book he coauthored is "The Evolving Use and Changing Role of
Interstate Compacts: a Practitioner's Guide". In response to
further questions, he explained that the U.S. Supreme Court - in
West Virginia Ex Rel. Dyer V. Simms, 341 U.S. 22 (1951) - has
already ruled that delegating rulemaking authority to an
interstate compact agency is not unconstitutional but is instead
an axiom of modern government; pointed out that Article XVIII
says in part that any provisions of the compact that exceed
constitutional limits are ineffective to the extent of the
conflict; and acknowledged that any changes to the articles of
the proposed compact would require legislative approval, and
that a legislature could stipulate in its enacting legislation
that any rules promulgated by the Interstate Commission be
subject to legislature approval.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 137.
2:22:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report HB 137 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HB 137 was reported from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:22 p.m. to 2:24 p.m.
HB 108 - PROPERTY FORECLOSURES AND EXECUTIONS
2:24:25 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 108, "An Act relating to real property
foreclosures, to the sale of property on execution, and to deeds
of trust." [Before the committee was CSHB 108(L&C).]
2:24:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 108, Version 26-LS0318\P, Bannister,
3/26/09, as the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
2:25:10 PM
JANE W. PIERSON, Staff, Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State
Legislature, explained on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Ramras, that proposed AS 09.35.140(b) in Section 2 of Version P
now contains a requirement that the notice of execution of the
sale of real property also be noticed on an Internet web site,
and expands the list of qualified web sites to include
newspapers of general circulation so long as they meet the
requirements listed in Section 2's proposed AS 09.35.140(c).
She surmised, therefore, that if a newspaper were qualified to
run legal ads, it would also be qualified to run the Internet
publication. Furthermore, proposed AS 09.35.140(c) also
requires that any Internet web site used for this purpose be
free to the viewing public.
MS. PIERSON indicated that Section 4 - proposed AS 34.20.070(b)
- now contains a reference to proposed AS 34.20.070(e) - found
in Section 6 and requiring a description of conditions for
curing the default - and requires among other things that the
notice of default served on the trustor include language stating
that the payment to cure the default must be made two days prior
to the sale date stated in the notice of default, or two days
prior to the date the sale is postponed to. Proposed AS
34.20.070(e) contains language conforming to that of proposed AS
34.20.070(b). She surmised that these provisions should provide
adequate notice to the trustor regarding curing the default.
Section 10's proposed AS 34.20.080(j), she relayed, now provides
that if the sale is rescinded under proposed AS 34.20.080(g)
that the deed of trust foreclosed in the rescinded sale is
restored to the validity and priority it would have had had the
sale not occurred.
MS. PIERSON, in response to a question, clarified that Section 4
now also contains a reference to proposed AS 34.20.080(e), which
is contained in Section 9 and which pertains to [postponing the
sale].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS stated that Version P was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES questioned whether the term, "(a)" ought
to be added to Section 1's proposed AS 09.35.140.
MS. PIERSON surmised that doing so might be cleaner.
2:31:05 PM
ROBERT H. SCHMIDT, Attorney at Law, Groh Eggers, LLC, after
relaying that his firm processes only about 100 foreclosures per
year, expressed concern that the Internet publication provisions
in Version P could prove problematic because the newspapers in
some smaller communities don't have their own Internet web
sites, thereby requiring those conducting a foreclosure sale in
such communities to use his competitor's web site. He said that
although the bill does several favorable things, Version P now
also raises an issue regarding what he called the two-day
cutoff.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Representative Coghill.]
MR. SCHMIDT offered his understanding that under the bill, a
person could stop a foreclosure by paying what's due plus
associated charges as long as that payment occurs at least two
days prior to the [foreclosure] sale, but the person would be
precluded from curing the default if payment is not made at
least two days prior to the sale. He pointed out that the
financial institution his firm represents would never turn down
a cure and would rather the person keep the property. Version P
appears to mandate that any attempt at curing the default be
refused if it can't occur at least two days prior to the sale,
thus requiring the bank to go forth with the sale. Surmising
that that is not the intent of the bill, he indicated that he
has some suggested language to address this problem.
MR. SCHMIDT then offered his belief that there appears to be a
typographical error on page 3, line 4, surmising that proposed
AS 09.35.140(c)(2) is not meant to cover newspapers at all. In
conclusion, he characterized HB 108 as a good bill that will do
much to modernize Alaska's foreclosure laws. In response to a
question, he reiterated his concern about what he'd called the
two-day cutoff [as provided for in Sections 4 and 6], adding
that most modern deeds of trust will conflict with "this"
because they stipulate that a foreclosure sale can be stopped by
curing the default before the sale, thus providing broader
rights for cure than what the bill currently proposes. He
acknowledged, though, that that's not necessarily a reason for
not having the "two-day rule," and that various out-of-state
lenders who operate substantially higher loan portfolios might
benefit by such a rule. In response to a comment, he posited
that local banks might not be interested in having such a rule,
and would instead prefer to accept a payment cure rather than
going through with the foreclosure sale.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested to Mr. Schmidt that he provide
the committee with any suggested changes in writing.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.
CHAIR RAMRAS opined that the benefits of the bill outweigh the
potential problems with the [two-day cutoff], surmising that
generally borrowers wouldn't be able to remedy a situation in
those last two days anyway.
2:42:02 PM
STEPHEN ROUTH, Attorney at Law, Routh Crabtree, apc, in response
to a question, relayed that his firm processes substantially
more than 100 foreclosures per month, and - with the full
concurrence of its clients - does everything possible to keep
borrowers in their homes. Referring to Version P, he offered
his belief that its intent is to broaden the definition of
Internet web sites suitable for publications, with the goal
being to widen the publicity for sales, since any proceeds go
back into the borrower's account. People are now shopping on
the Internet for property, and so the bill would bring Alaska
into that market; both Florida and Arkansas have passed similar
legislation, and Alaska would be the third state [should HB 108
pass].
MR. ROUTH, referring to Mr. Schmidt's comment, opined that those
newspapers that don't yet have a web site could simply set one
up because it's easy to do. Referring to the bill's stipulation
that a default must be cured at least two days prior to the
foreclosure sale, he posited that the goal of that language is
to ensure that enough notice is provided to the lending
institution so that it doesn't proceed with an unnecessary
foreclosure sale. He said he agrees that no bank is going to
object to having the default cured even when it occurs at the
last minute.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES questioned whether the provisions in a
deed of sale would supersede [state law].
MR. ROUTH offered his belief that the deed of trust provisions
would prevail.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES questioned whether that would create a
problem given that in such a situation, the legal notice of the
default sale would stipulate the two-day cutoff.
MR. ROUTH acknowledged that that could create a problem and be
confusing to the borrower.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES indicated that that's of concern to her.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that Mr. Schmidt and Mr.
Routh work together and present the committee with any suggested
changes.
MR. SCHMIDT and MR. ROUTH agreed to do so.
2:51:53 PM
BRYAN BUTCHER, Director, Government Affairs & Public Relations,
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), Department of Revenue
(DOR), in response to a question, explained that although he'd
not yet received a copy of Version P, the AHFC was supportive of
the prior version of HB 108, and surmised that the concern
raised by Mr. Schmidt [regarding the two-day cutoff] could be
resolved.
[HB 108, Version P, was held over.]
2:52:59 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:53 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB137 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| 01 HB108 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 108 |
| 02 Hb137 Sectional.pdf |
HJUD 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| 03 HB137 Bill version R.pdf |
HJUD 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| 04 HB137 EDU Fiscal Note.pdf |
HJUD 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| 05 HB137 Case Studies.pdf |
HJUD 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| 06 HB137 Letter of SupportOpposition.pdf |
HJUD 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| 03 HB108 Explaination of Changes version R to P.pdf |
HJUD 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 108 |
| 04 HB108 Sectional 3.27.09.pdf |
HJUD 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 108 |
| 05 HB108 REV FN Zero.pdf |
HJUD 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 108 |
| 06 HB108 Bill CSHb108(L&C) version R.pdf |
HJUD 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 108 |
| 07 HB108 Bill Version A.pdf |
HJUD 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 108 |
| 08 HB108 Letters of SupportOpposition.pdf |
HJUD 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 108 |
| CSHB108(LC)-DOR-AHFC-3-30-09.pdf |
HJUD 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 108 |