04/20/2007 03:00 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB65 | |
| HB163 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 197 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 20, 2007
3:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kurt Olson, Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Les Gara
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 65
"An Act relating to breaches of security involving personal
information, credit report and credit score security freezes,
consumer credit monitoring, credit accuracy, protection of
social security numbers, care of records, disposal of records,
identity theft, furnishing consumer credit header information,
credit cards, and debit cards, and to the jurisdiction of the
office of administrative hearings; amending Rule 60, Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 163
"An Act relating to real property foreclosures, executions, and
deeds of trust."
- MOVED CSHB 163(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 195
"An Act relating to limited liability companies."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 197
"An Act relating to the issuance of shares of professional
corporations to a trust, to trusts, to trustees, to the removal
of a trustee, to the compensation of a trustee and a person
employed by a trustee, to a trustee's accepting or rejecting a
trusteeship, to co- trustees, to a vacancy in a trusteeship, to
the resignation of a trustee, to delivery of trust property by
former trustees, to the reimbursement of trustee expenses, to
the certification of a trust, to the suitability of a trustee,
to the place of administration of a trust, to a trustee's power
to appoint property to another trust, to a change of the
percentage of trust property to be considered principal, to the
determination of the value of a trust, and to a settlor's intent
when transferring property in trust; amending Rules 54 and 82,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 65
SHORT TITLE: PERSONAL INFORMATION & CONSUMER CREDIT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) COGHILL, GARA
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
01/31/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
01/31/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/28/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/28/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/28/07 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/04/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/04/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/16/07 (H) L&C AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 17
04/16/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/20/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 163
SHORT TITLE: PROPERTY FORECLOSURES AND EXECUTIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAMRAS
02/28/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/28/07 (H) L&C, JUD
03/30/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/30/07 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/20/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff
to Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the sectional analysis to Version
C on behalf of Representative Coghill, joint prime sponsor of HB
65.
CLYDE "ED" SNIFFEN, JR., Senior Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 65.
GAIL HILLEBRAND, Senior Attorney
Consumers Union
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
65, and stated support of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As joint prime sponsor, provided feedback
to questions during the hearing on HB 65.
LORI DAVEY, President
Motznik Information Services, Inc
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 65, if amended
to reauthorize access to the PFD [permanent fund dividend] file
for legitimate business purposes.
JACK KREINHEDER, Chief Analyst
Office of Management & Budget (OMB)
Office of the Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the fiscal note for HB 65.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section - Juneau, Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
65.
STEPHEN D. ROUTH, Attorney at Law
Routh Crabtree
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Highlighted a sectional analysis of HB 163
on behalf of the bill sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR KURT OLSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:12:58 PM. Representatives
Neuman, LeDoux, Buch, Gardner, and Olson were present at the
call to order. Representative Ramras arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:13:06 to 3:13:46 in order
to establish a quorum.
HB 65-PERSONAL INFORMATION & CONSUMER CREDIT
3:13:48 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 65, "An Act relating to breaches of security
involving personal information, credit report and credit score
security freezes, consumer credit monitoring, credit accuracy,
protection of social security numbers, care of records, disposal
of records, identity theft, furnishing consumer credit header
information, credit cards, and debit cards, and to the
jurisdiction of the office of administrative hearings; amending
Rule 60, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
3:14:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to adopt CSHB 65, Version 25-
LS0311\C, Bannister, 4/9/07, as the working document. There
being no objection, Version C was before the committee.
3:14:49 PM
KAREN LIDSTER, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Alaska
State Legislature, reviewed the sectional analysis to Version C
on behalf of Representative Coghill, joint prime sponsor. She
stated that identity theft is becoming more of a problem, and
the proposed legislation addresses that issue. She directed
attention to [Section 3] of Version C, which would add Chapter
48 to Title 45 - thus creating the Personal Information
Protection Act.
MS. LIDSTER began with the new sections that would fall under
the proposed Chapter 48, Article 1, "Breach of Security
Involving Personal Information". She highlighted the proposed
AS 45.48.010 - "Disclosure of breach of security", AS 45.48.020
- "Allowable delay in notification", and AS 45.48.030 - "Methods
of notice". Regarding the latter, Ms. Lidster relayed that
there would be changes to the cost of notification from $250,000
to $150,000, as well as changes to the number of residents
affected from 500,000 to 300,000.
MS. LIDSTER continued, noting that the proposed AS 45.48.040 -
"Notification of certain other agencies" - includes language
specifying which agencies must be notified in the case of a
breach of security and listing exceptions to that notification.
She said AS 45.48.050 - "Exception for employees and agents" -
lists exceptions related to the acquisition of personal
information, while AS 45.48.060 - "Waivers" - states that there
"are no waivers of these sections allowed." The proposed AS
45.48.070 - "Treatment of certain breaches" - would require that
breaches of information by an information recipient be reported
back to the information distributor in order to comply with
notification requirements. She said AS 45.48.080 - "Violations"
- sets out the fines for violations related to breeches in
information caused by governmental and nongovernmental agencies.
AS 45.48.090 - "Definitions" - supplies the definitions for the
terms used.
MS. LIDSTER turned to the new sections that would fall under the
proposed Chapter 48, Article 2, "Credit Report and Credit Score
Security Freeze", which include: AS 45.48.100 - "Security
freeze authorized"; AS 45.48.110 - "Placement of security
freeze"; AS 45.48.120 - "Confirmation of security freeze"; AS
45.48.130 - "Access and actions during security freeze"; and AS
45.48.140 - "Removal of security freeze"; and AS 45.48.150 -
"Prohibition".
MS. LIDSTER indicated that there had been a requirement to use
certified mail, which was deleted because it was burdensome and
unnecessary. She mentioned that Legislative Legal and Research
Services inserted the words "credit" and "credit score" on page
8 in order to achieve consistency.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:20 p.m. to 3:21 p.m.
3:21:36 PM
MS. LIDSTER addressed the remaining portions of language
pertaining to credit report and credit score security freeze.
She said AS 45.48.160 - "Charges" - lists the charges that a
consumer must pay in order to have a security freeze lifted.
She said, "This is a change from the original bill and states
that the reporting agency will allow two lifts for free, and
then there will be a charge for the ... lifts after that; but
there must also be written notice provided by the consumer
reporting agency so the consumer knows that there will be a
charge." She explained that the intent behind the charge is to
help consumers appreciate the cost to the agency and the amount
of work involved. She said the proposed AS 45.48.170 - "Notice
of rights" - lists the additional notices the credit agencies
will provide to the consumer along with the summary of rights.
The notices will let consumers know what their rights are under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act. She noted that AS 45.48.180 -
"Notification after violation" - lists the notification
requirements a consumer credit reporting agency must follow if
it violates a security freeze.
MS. LIDSTER said the proposed AS 45.48.190 - "Resellers" - would
close a small loophole by ensuring that resellers understand
that they have to honor a security freeze that has been placed
by another consumer reporting agency. She said AS 45.48.200 -
"Violations and penalties" - describes the rights of the
consumer who suffers damages as a result of a breach. She noted
that AS 45.48.210 - "Exemptions" - list the exemptions to the
use of credit information when a security freeze is in place.
Finally, she noted, AS 45.48.290 - "Definitions" - defines all
the terms used.
MS. LIDSTER covered the new sections that would fall under the
proposed Chapter 48, Article 3, "Consumer Credit Monitoring;
Credit Accuracy", which would be: AS 45.48.300 - "Required
disclosure"; AS 45.48.310 - "Information to be disclosed"; AS
45.48.320 - "Cost of disclosure"; AS 45.48.330 - "Form of
disclosure"; AS 45.48.340 - "Timing of disclosure"; and AS
45.48.350 - "Credit accuracy". Ms. Lidster said the language
related to credit accuracy describes procedures for a consumer
to follow should he/she find inaccurate information has been
reported or distributed in relation to himself/herself.
3:25:58 PM
MS. LIDSTER reviewed the new sections that would fall under the
proposed Chapter 48, Article 4, "Protection of Social Security
Number", which would be: AS 45.48.400 - "Use of social security
number"; AS 45.48.410 - "Request and collection"; AS 45.48.420 -
"Sale, lease, loan, trade, or rental"; AS 45.48.430 -
"Disclosure"; AS 45.48.440 - "Interagency disclosure"; AS
45.48.450 - "Exception for employees, agents, and independent
contractors"; AS 45.48.460 - "Employment-related exception"; AS
45.48.470 - "Agency regulations"; and AS 45.48.480 -
"Penalties".
3:27:44 PM
MS. LIDSTER moved on to the new sections that would fall under
the proposed Chapter 48, Article 5, "Disposal of Records", which
would be: AS 45.48.500 - "Disposal of records"; AS 45.48.510 -
"Measures to protect access"; AS 45.48.520 - "Due diligence"; AS
45.48.530 - "Policy and procedures"; AS 45.48.540 -
"Exemptions"; AS 45.48.550 - "Civil penalty"; AS 45.48.560 -
"Court action"; AS 45.48.590 - "Definitions".
3:29:42 PM
MS. LIDSTER then detailed the new sections that would fall under
the proposed Chapter 48, Article 6, "Factual Declaration of
Innocence after Identity Theft; Right to File Police Report
Regarding Identity Theft", which would be: AS 45.48.600 -
"Factual declaration of innocence after identity theft"; AS
45.48.610 - "Basis for determination"; AS 45.48.620 - "Criteria
for determination; court order"; AS 45.48.630 - "Orders
regarding records"; AS 45.48.640 - "Vacation of determination";
AS 45.48.650 - "Court form"; AS 45.48.660 - "Data base"; AS
45.48.670 - "Toll-free telephone number"; AS 45.48.680 - "Right
to file police report regarding identity theft"; and AS
45.48.690 - "Definitions". She said the vacation of
determination can be ordered by the court if there has been a
misrepresentation of material. The court form, she said, would
be developed by the court. The data base would house names of
victims of identity theft. The language would appoint the
responsibility to the law enforcement agency to make the report,
even if they do not have the jurisdiction.
3:31:44 PM
MS. LIDSTER went on to discuss the two other new sections that
would fall under the proposed Chapter 48. One would be Article
7, "Consumer Credit Header information", and the other would be
Article 8, "Truncation of Card Information". She explained that
within Article 8 is a description of the limits on a business,
regarding the printing of credit or debit card numbers and the
type of receipt production. Furthermore, she said Article 8 was
made to "tighten down the printing of your credit or debit card
information." She explained:
It's added language that states that a person may not
sell a devise that prints more than the last four
digits of a credit or debit card on a consumer or
merchant copy. It does provide for an effective date,
and it also removes the violation of this as a Class A
misdemeanor.
3:33:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to the factual declaration of
innocence after identity theft and cited the language of
[subsection (a), including paragraph (1)], on page 25,
[beginning on line 24 through line 28], which read as follows:
(a) A victim of identity theft may petition the
superior court for a determination that the victim is
factually innocent of a crime if
(1) the perpetrator of the identity theft
was arrested for, cited for, or convicted of the crime
using the victim's identity;
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Ms. Lidster how the bill would
handle a situation in which the victim of the crime never finds
out who committed the identity theft.
MS. LIDSTER, in response, referred to page 26, [lines 6-9],
which read as follows:
Sec. 45.48.610. Basis for determination. A
determination of factual innocence under AS 45.48.600
may be heard and made on declarations, affidavits,
police reports, or other material, relevant, and
reliable information submitted by the parties or
ordered to be made a part of the record by the court.
MS. LIDSTER indicated that the language would cover a situation
in which the perpetrator was never identified.
3:38:30 PM
CLYDE "ED" SNIFFEN, JR., Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), in response
to a question from Representative LeDoux, confirmed that the
language regarding basis for determination focuses on having
someone declared factually innocent after identity theft even if
the perpetrator is not convicted but there is evidence to show
that the victim of the identity theft had nothing to do with
"that criminal proceeding."
REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX asked why a perpetrator has to be found if
the identity theft victim has already proven his/her legal
innocence.
MR. SNIFFEN said that is an excellent question. He said the
current language of the bill focuses only on a situation in
which there is a perpetrator that the victim has been able to
identify, which results in either an arrest of the perpetrator
or a complaint being filed against him/her. He continued:
And I think what you're suggesting is that, "Well,
what if you can't even find the guy?" Let's say
you're identity's been stolen and you're having all
these problems - you don't where the guy is. Why
can't we go get some relief from the court to show
that, "Hey, this isn't me; I need to get on with my
life; declare me factually innocent so I can help
clear this mess up"? And I don't know that the
language in this CS, as currently drafted, addresses
that situation head on.
REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX confirmed that Version C does not address
that issue. She asked Mr. Sniffen if he had any suggestions
regarding how to solve this problem.
MR. SNIFFEN offered to speak with Anne Carpeneti, [Assistant
Attorney General, Legal Services Section - Juneau, Criminal
Division, Department of Law], who has been focusing on this
particular section of the bill, in order to come up with a
solution. He explained that his area of expertise is in civil
law; therefore "the criminal implications of this particular
section are lost on me."
REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX asked what manner of problems a person
might encounter if he/she has been judged as innocent but is
unable to show his/her factual innocence.
MR. SNIFFEN said some people have trouble getting creditors to
believe that they are not the identity thief, but are instead
the innocent victim of the identity theft. He stated:
... I think this process would allow those victims to
go to the creditor and say, "See, I have a court order
that tells you that I did not do this thing. You need
to discharge me of the obligation for this debt, and
you need to write a letter to my credit reporting
agency telling them that I'm not responsible for
this." And I think the ... force of a court order
directing that the victim actually had nothing to do
with it is something ... [identity] theft victims
would like to see.
REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX asked Mr. Sniffen if he envisions that a
person would have to be tried and use identity theft as an
affirmative defense. She described another situation in which
"nobody's going to actually get tried, so legal innocence isn't
going to be adjudicated, but they're really having a problem and
they would like to show this." She said she is not certain
whether or not Article 6 "covers that." She said she imagines
there are many cases in which a person's identity has been
stolen, yet he/she has not been charged with a bill. She
explained that generally, not paying bills is not a crime, but
is a civil action.
MR. SNIFFEN agreed that most identity theft victims don't get
charged with crimes, at least initially; however, he noted that
sometimes an identity thief uses a person's name to "rack up bad
credit" for so long, that that person ends up getting a visit
from a trooper with a warrant for his/her arrest. He remarked,
"Before that happens, you would think there would be something
that the victims could do to get assistance to help clear their
name. And there may be room in this Article 6 for that to
happen prior to criminal charges being brought." He said he
would speak with Ms. Carpeneti on that point.
3:45:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if the language on page 3 -
regarding the cost of providing notice exceeding $150,000 and
the affected class of state residents to be notified exceeding
300,000 - would strengthen the intent of the bill.
MS. LIDSTER replied that the 300,000 amount "just shows that
there would be other methods used to communicate the breach to
them other than ... just the written notice." She added:
At that level of $150,000 - if it was going to exceed
that, or exceed 300,000 residents, it would have to be
notified. We did not feel that it weakened the bill,
it was just a reasonable number.
3:47:02 PM
MS. LIDSTER, in response to Representative Neuman, reiterated
that notice still has to be given by electronic mail or through
the Internet. She mentioned notice through statewide media, as
well.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN directed attention to page 15, [beginning
on page 29], to the language regarding credit monitoring. He
asked how a person would go about getting a copy of his/her
personal [credit] information.
MS. LIDSTER said the individual would make a request to the
consumer reporting agency. She shared her understanding that
there are web sites available for this. In response to a
follow-up question from Representative Neuman, she offered her
understanding that there are three national agencies: Equifax,
TransUnion LLC, and Experian. She offered further information
related to using the agencies and placing a freeze.
3:52:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked for details regarding a security
freeze.
MS. LIDSTER responded that those details can be found on page
11, [beginning on line 6, through page 12, line 29 of Version
C].
3:53:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH directed attention to the language in the
proposed AS 45.48.120 [on page 7, lines 1-11, and noted that the
consumer credit reporting agency would be given a 10-day period
by which to respond to a consumer's request for a security
freeze. He asked if it would be correct to interpret that
language to mean that the consumer would be vulnerable for those
10 days.
MS. LIDSTER confirmed that there would be ten days between the
time a consumer made the request to the time he/she received
confirmation from the agency that the freeze was put in place.
3:54:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested that that could mean the
security freeze is implemented immediately, but it could take
ten days to receive confirmation of it in writing.
MS. LIDSTER confirmed that's correct.
CHAIR OLSON noted that a tremendous amount of research has gone
into HB 65 and into a similar bill the previous year. He asked,
"How many breaches have we had in Alaska in the last five
years?"
MS. LIDSTER said she does not know.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if, in the absence of the bill
becoming law, a person could request a security freeze.
MS. LIDSTER shared her understanding that this is the case
because of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. She noted that a
representative of the Consumers Union is available to offer
further details.
3:57:05 PM
GAIL HILLEBRAND, Senior Attorney, Consumers Union, in response
to Representative Neuman's question, said:
There are 31 states that have passed security freeze
laws. We've got a policeman in Texas who called up
and tried to get one and he was not able to because
his state provides it only for victims. ... Our best
understanding is they're not providing it voluntarily
to people who live outside those 31 states.
3:58:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said insurance companies have been known
to use a credit reporting system to determine how much they
charge for insurance. He asked, "Is this where credit scores
could be used in that, and, if so, how would insurance companies
work around that?"
[Due to technical difficulties, there is no sound recording from
3:58:14 to 4:00:07; that segment was reconstructed from Gavel to
Gavel's recording.]
CHAIR OLSON offered his belief that that is not addressed by the
bill.
MS. LIDSTER stated that the exceptions to the credit freeze are
listed, beginning on the bottom of page 13. She stated that she
does not believe an insurance agency would necessarily "fall
into these exceptions."
4:01:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, joint prime
sponsor, in response to Chair Olson's previous question as to
how many security breaches there have been in Alaska, said there
was one major breach. He called it the "Choice Point
situation," which occurred in 2005. He relayed that Choice
Point is a division of Equifax. He mentioned an article
pertaining to this occurrence, which appeared in the [Anchorage
Daily News]. He explained that Choice Point accidentally
released the social security and credit information of 140,000
Americans; approximately 250 of those were Alaskans. He said
that is the only national breach he knows of that has been
broken down to show how many Alaskans have been affected. Soon
after the breach, Choice Point contacted the California victims
to notify them that their security had been breached, because
unlike Alaska, California has a law requiring companies to do
that. Alaska victims were contacted some months later. He
stated, "Choice Point's explanation has been: they thought that
maybe the information that was stolen from the Californians ...
might somehow more readily lead to theft of their information
than the information that was taken from Alaskans. ... I
suppose many people are skeptical of that explanation."
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH revealed that he is a Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) [Hospital] patient. He asked Representative Gara
if he is aware of a nationwide breach of security that occurred
approximately eight months ago, when someone accessed all the VA
information.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he was not aware of that breach.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that that information was personal,
not "credit," which would explain why Representative Gara had
not heard of it before.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Representative Neuman,
reviewed the main provisions of the bill. In response to a
follow-up question, he said requesting a freeze from the
previously mentioned three main credit agencies would be
sufficient to stop credit agencies from giving clearance to any
sale on big ticket items wherein the sales person calls for that
clearance before completing the sale. He indicated that it
would not stop smaller purchases from occurring. He offered his
understanding that a person's credit card information is not
public information; the first two provisions in the bill address
stolen credit cards.
4:06:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if a person would have to have a
card stolen before he/she would be able to put a freeze on
his/her account.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA answered no. He said it is at the
discretion of the card holder whether or not to request that a
freeze be placed on his/her card. He added, "You don't have to
prove anything to place the freeze."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said it seems as though the three major
companies make their money by sharing information with qualified
organizations. She questioned why people worried about identity
theft would not simply put a freeze on all their assets to avoid
taking a risk.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA shared his understanding that it may be
possible to do that, but such action might affect a person's
credit report.
4:09:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER opined:
It seems to me, if I'm in the business of selling
credit data, I would want to make some kind of
clarification as to whether the freeze is triggered by
a consumer directly or by something else; because at
some point ... that consumer will take the freeze off
... for whatever reason, and in the interest of having
the data useful and valuable, I need to make a
distinction so that other people will buy my data.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he doesn't know that any other entity
can place a freeze on someone's credit card; therefore, if a
freeze has been placed, then it was done by the owner of the
card.
4:12:15 PM
MS. HILLEBRAND clarified that a security freeze is designed to
give the individual consumer the choice whether or not to freeze
the file. During the freeze, information in the file remains in
an up-to-date state; therefore, when the consumer lifts the
freeze, the bureau can still sell information to creditors once
the freeze is lifted. Furthermore, during a freeze, existing
creditors can still access the consumer's file to ensure that
he/she is still a good risk. She explained that the bureau
cannot sell information in a frozen file, which means the owner
of the frozen file is protected from someone trying to
impersonate them in order to access information.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Ms. Hildebrand, "Have the credit
reporting agencies fought this kind of legislation in other
places?"
MS. HILLEBRAND answered that the bureau's response is
"evolving"; it did oppose such legislation in "some of the early
states," while in other states it seemed to be trying to make it
harder to use, by imposing requirements such as certified mail
or high fees. She related, "Interestingly, one of the arguments
they're making in some states is not that many consumers are
using it. We think that's a 'yet' - that when word gets around
about this tool, more consumers will want to use it."
4:13:58 PM
MS. HILLEBRAND, in response to a question from Representative
Neuman, said although a person could acquire his/her own credit
information from a frozen file, it would not be useful for the
purpose of giving it to a car dealer, for example. That car
dealer would want to get the information directly from the
bureau to ensure that the consumer has not doctored the file in
some way. Therefore, if the consumer would have to take an
extra step in requesting a temporary lift and identifying how
long the life should be or specifically for whom it is being
lifted.
MS. HILLEBRAND, in response to a follow-up question from
Representative Neuman, offered the following hypothetical
example:
Here's how it works: I'm a thief. I want to open an
account in your name. I go to a creditor of my
choice, but that creditor, in processing my ... false
application, will go the credit borough to check your
credit. And that's why the credit bureau is kind of a
choke hold on the ... theft system. ... The creditor
I choose to impersonate you at would not go to your
other creditors, they'd just go to the credit bureau.
4:15:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Ms. Hildebrand to speak generally
about legitimate uses of a person's file that that person has
not directly requested.
MS. HILLEBRAND responded:
Your existing creditors do have a need or may have
perceived a need to review your file on a periodic
basis. They want to make sure that you're as good a
credit risk today as the day they gave you your
mortgage or your car loan or your credit card. And
that is account review, which is specifically exempted
on page 15 from the operation of the freeze. That's
the main one.
There also is an exemption for a special kind of
agency that deals with people who have their checking
accounts closed because they didn't pay their bad
checks. ... If your existing creditor is going to
sell your loan to another entity, ... the people who
are buying that whole portfolio of loans needs to
check up and make sure those are sound loans, and
that's exempted, as well.
And then there is an exemption here for what's called,
"pre-screening," and that's because states cannot
address that under state law - you'd be preempted if
you do.
MS HILLEBRAND offered further details.
4:18:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked Representative Gara what other
highlights he sees in HB 65.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA mentioned "the trade of social security
numbers provision," which he said has been a strong issue for
many of the other co-sponsors of the bill. He explained that
currently it is legal to sell a social security number, and he
opined that it should not be.
4:19:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Representative Gara to describe the
distinction between how government agencies and private
businesses are treated in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied:
The first provision, let's say. If the state were to
release your personal information accidentally - if
somebody were to steal it - they, too, would have to
notify you under this bill. They wouldn't be subject
to the freeze provisions, because the freeze
provisions only apply to those three agencies that
have the information. They would be subject to the
limitation of transferring out your social security
numbers. They have to keep your social security
numbers secure; we would require them to do that.
There is a provision on the safe-keeping of financial
and social security records and the proper disposal of
them when you're in the business of using those
things. The state and private entities would be
required to not just take your social security
information and leave it on a trash bin for somebody
to pick up; they would have to have a disposal policy
and protect the privacy of that information.
... I guess there's a case that could be made that we
should exempt the state from many of these things, ...
but the state is largely included in the bill, to the
same extent as private business. There might be an
exception here or there.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if it would be advisable for a
person to place a freeze on his/her credit information. He
opined that such an action would increase personal security, but
he asked if it would be "over the top."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said, "I think you're going to find a number
of detriments to yourself if you have a permanent security
freeze on your own credit." He deferred to Ms. Hildebrand for
further comment.
4:22:17 PM
MS. HILLEBRAND proffered:
The freeze is designed precisely for what the
representative described, which is: you don't think
you're going to be seeking new credit; you want the
extra protection. It's kind of like bolting your
front door and now you have to carry two keys. There
is an inconvenience factor when you decide you're the
one that wants to get new credit in your own name; you
have to go and lift the freeze - but you do have a
method to do that. We think it's particularly
appropriate for people who are mature in the credit
market: they're either not in the housing market or
they already have a house; they maybe are not going to
be buying a car for the next few years; like most of
us, they have enough or too many credit cards. It's
probably less likely that ... a recent college
graduate is going to want to place the freeze if they
are kind of in that acquisition stage of their life,
in terms of credit. For seniors it can be
particularly valuable if there's an issue of
competency, and if you're caring for an aging senior,
you might very well want to put that freeze on just so
you don't have to worry about whether they are going
to respond properly to the danger signals if someone
has opened an account in their name. So, it's a
highly personal choice.
MS. HILLEBRAND concluded that [a freeze] offers the most
protection, but requires an extra step in order to access the
credit again.
4:23:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX asked what would happen if a person waits
a couple years to lift a freeze and by then has forgotten
his/her password.
MS. HILLEBRAND replied that the person would have to contact the
bureau, and that process would take longer, because the bureau
would have to confirm the identity of that person.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to a question from
Representative Gardner, said he has spoken with Mr. Sniffen of
the Department of Law, regarding liability issues for the state.
He said there is a fine provision in the bill, and he surmised
that the state could be fined for its own misconduct and "in
some sense it would be paying itself." He said Mr. Sniffen
recommended that the bill sponsors address that portion of the
bill. Regarding damages that the state may cause someone else,
Representative Gara said he thinks that is something for which
the state should be liable.
4:25:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to a request from
Representative Gardner, noted that the definition of "personal
information" is on pages 5-6 of Version C, and includes name,
address, or telephone number, plus one or more of the following:
social security number, driver's license, financial information,
or financial access codes.
4:29:34 PM
MR. SNIFFEN said he is involved in educating Alaskans regarding
identity theft, and he appreciates these issues being brought to
the forefront through proposed legislation. He continued:
The issues that we have with the bill ... deal with
the state's exposure to liability for inadvertent
breaches. And the one provision in particular that we
have concern about is in [the proposed AS] 45.48.480,
and that's in the social security number section.
There's a provision there that essentially says the
state could be liable to a consumer who suffers no
damages - which is different than the scenario
Representative Gara described - ... but still can get
$5,000 from the state, because the provision says an
action may be brought against the state to recover
actual damages or $5,000, whichever is greater.
So, imagine an inadvertent breach by a clerk who makes
$8/hour in some agency in the State of Alaska, and
numbers get out to 300,000 people. The exposure to
the state for that kind of liability is just enormous,
and it's just not necessary, because I don't know how
that would help further the goals of the bill. State
agencies are going to continue their efforts to
protect this information [and] do what they can to
keep it confidential.
The provisions in the bill under Section 1, dealing
with security breaches, we have no issues with.
There's a reasonable cap on potential damages to the
state there - that's fine. And I'm not necessarily
opposed to letting consumers who suffer actual damages
bring claims against the state like they could any
other tort. But providing for this $5,000 sort of
automatic damage is just a lure for a class action
plaintiff to find some breach and really create some
significant liability against the state. So, we would
encourage the committee to take a look at those
liability provisions and decide if it's good state
policy to have the state exposed to that kind of
liability.
4:32:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER spoke of a document that is sent to the
Department of Labor by employers when they hire employees, which
enables the Department of Labor to garnish child support
payments from the appropriate employees. She noted that
currently, the Municipality of Anchorage is embroiled in a
dispute with the Department of Labor, because it wants access to
that data in order to collect other types of judgments - for
example, unpaid [traffic citations]. She asked Mr. Sniffen if
he is familiar with the situation.
MR. SNIFFEN answered no.
4:34:02 PM
LORI DAVEY, President, Motznik Information Services, Inc,
testified as follows:
I'm testifying today in favor of HB 65, along with the
request to amend the bill to reauthorize access to the
PFD [permanent fund dividend] file for legitimate
business purposes. House Bill 65 finally defines what
constitutes personal information and the legal
recourse for those who are negligently careless or
criminally intent on misusing a person's information.
A person's name, address, date of birth, and phone
number alone is not considered personal information.
From the PFD file we've only ever had the address and
the name of individuals.
We find ourselves today in juxtaposition between
making sure people's personal information is protected
and ensuring citizens can go about their normal
business of employment, buying a home, and banking, as
well as offering remedy to those who have had their
identity fraudulently or mistakenly crossed with
another's.
Victims of identity theft or mistaken identity have
little resources to differentiate themselves from
criminals or other individuals. When I purchased
Motznik Information Services four years ago, my bank
documents had a lien against the other Lori J. Davey's
coffee shop in Glennallen, and I was born in
Glennallen. I was able to prove by our public voter
records and our PFD records and hunting and fishing
records that we were not the same person. It would be
harder to do that today. It's fortunate for my family
and my employees that the other Lori Davey doesn't
have a criminal record or a bankruptcy record.
During my February visit to Juneau, I believe it was
in Representative Olson's office that a staff person
told me about a Kenai resident who erroneously had his
PFD check garnished to pay a debt for another resident
with a similar name.
It's normal practice for employers and creditors to
run background checks on individuals. The Alaska
criminal file has the identifier's name and date of
birth in it. We use a series of public files to
cross-reference and differentiate individuals with
common names to compare to the records in the civil,
criminal, bankruptcy, and Recorder's Office files.
The best match [is] when you can corroborate a name
and a date of birth.
As you may recall, we lost access to the PFD file in
2005. I was told by then Senator Guess that this
would be corrected for us in the next session, but it
was not. When we lost this file, we lost the best
source for a comprehensive list of all Alaskans.
It's now very difficult to differentiate criminals
from non-criminals with common names. Criminals do
not necessarily vote, register their vehicles,
purchase hunting and fishing licenses, or own property
- but they do get a PFD check. This is about
accountability and ensuring the average Alaska citizen
maintains their personal rights in society.
Reauthorizing access to the PFD file in a limited
format will ensure records are properly matched to the
individual, and you'll have the balance necessary for
the innocent John Doe to prove he is not the same
person as the criminal.
I've been working with Representative Ramras to create
an amendment to reauthorize limited access to the PFD
file for legitimate business purposes by modeling the
DMV [Division of Motor Vehicles] exemptions and the
"do-not-call" exemptions as a guide. ...
As an industry, we already maintain a separate
classification of access for the confidential DMV
file, and [the] limited access PFD file would have to
be handled in much the same way.
MS. DAVEY concluded by referring to an amendment to HB 65 that
would "correct the past mistakes by reauthorizing access to
[the] PFD file for legitimate purposes," thus allowing those
with similar names to be identified accurately.
4:37:45 PM
MS. DAVEY, in response to a question from Representative
Gardner, confirmed that the information she would like access to
through the PFD files is: name, address, and date of birth. In
response to Representative Neuman, she clarified that the
aforementioned amendment has not been introduced, "but it's one
that we've been working on."
4:38:31 PM
MS. HILLEBRAND augmented her original remarks by noting that the
Consumers Union is the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports.
She stated, "Our mission's to test, inform, and protect, and I'm
with the protect portion of our organization." She said [the
Consumers Union] supports HB 65 as a "solid, well-balanced
bill."
4:38:50 PM
JACK KREINHEDER, Chief Analyst, Office of Management & Budget
(OMB), Office of the Governor, noted that he had prepared the
fiscal note for HB 65. In response to Chair Olson, he stated
that based on his review of Version C, there would be no change
in the fiscal note. The reason, he explained, is that Version C
would not change the aforementioned penalty provision.
4:40:37 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section - Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), in
response to Representative Gardner's previous question regarding
the dispute of the Municipality of Anchorage, said she cannot
answer whether or not the proposed legislation would prohibit
that kind of exchange of information from state to municipality.
She explained that her focus on the bill has been on Article 6.
REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX, referring to Article 6 and the
declaration of factual innocence, asked what would happen if the
perpetrator is never found. She questioned why someone who is
innocent would not have any recourse.
[CHAIR OLSON turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Neuman.]
MS. CARPENETI interpreted the proposed AS 45.48.600 as not
addressing that particular situation. She asked Representative
LeDoux if she could use a particular incident as an example.
REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX clarified that she is talking about
someone who has had his/her identity stolen, whose credit rating
is "all screwed up."
MS. CARPENETI said she is unclear as to how Article 6 would
function. She said:
The way it's drafted now, I think it requires that the
... thief who took the identity would have to have
some connection with the criminal justice system.
MS. CARPENETI referred to language in the original bill version,
[which is found in Version C, on page 25, lines 24-31, through
page 26, line 1, and which read as follows]:
Sec. 45.48.600. Factual declaration of innocence
after identity theft. (a) A victim of identity theft
may petition the superior court for a determination
that the victim is factually innocent of a crime if
(1) the perpetrator of the identity theft
was arrested for, cited for, or convicted of the crime
using the victim's identity;
(2) a criminal complaint was filed against
the perpetrator of the identity theft;
(3) the victim's identity was mistakenly
associated with a record of a conviction for a crime.
MS. CARPENETI noted that there is no use of the word "or" or
"and" between [paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)]. She said she
thinks the word "or" should be there [between paragraphs (2) and
(3)].
REPRESENTATIVE GARA confirmed that is correct. He added, "And
therefore you could get a factual declaration of innocence, even
if they didn't find the perpetrator, as long as the court
determined that the victim's identity was mistaken and that they
were not the thief." He clarified that the word "or" should
appear after "theft;" on page 25, line 30, of Version C.
REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX proffered:
Suppose it's just some poor guy, as it usually is.
He's got his credit report screwed up, because
somebody has stolen his identity. Why does somebody
have had to have been convicted of a crime or [had a]
criminal complaint filed against him, or anything like
that? Why don't we just let these people prove that
they are factually innocent?
4:47:28 PM
MS. CARPENETI responded as follows:
That may be a procedure that you would want to
consider, but this particular procedure deals with how
a person would approach ... a situation where the
identity theft has been convicted and there's a record
of the conviction. I think you might be talking about
another procedure to ... get your credit report
cleared, even if there's no conviction or any criminal
activity that you can prove.
REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX asked, "Why wouldn't we have it all in one
fell swoop ...?"
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said this provision is in other states'
bills, which is why he cannot explain the policy call. However,
he suggested asking Ms. Hildebrand for an explanation. He
continued:
The one thing I do know is ... these are the kinds of
mistakes that you can go to a court in a summary
fashion, with affidavits [and] paperwork and get a
very quick order on. ... These are issues of ...
mistaken conviction [and] mistaken identity, and you
want to clear your name up very quickly. You can do
that on a form from the court or you can do it with
affidavits, and this is a procedure to come up with
that very quick declaration.
You're talking about a much more complex situation
which might also occur, where somehow your name has
been associated with a criminal act - maybe somehow
the credit reporting agency has found out about it,
[and] they haven't found the perpetrator - and I don't
know what the procedure would be for something like
that.
REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX said she thought the initial discussion of
the bill indicated that its intent was to make it possible for
someone to clear his/her name when his/her credit report is
sullied by someone else.
4:50:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Ms. Hildebrand if she would confirm
whether there is already a procedure that exists for a person to
clear up his/her credit report and how that is distinct from the
proposed provision.
MS. HILLEBRAND stated:
This was copied from a number of other state laws; it
deals with a very specific type of identity theft
called, "criminal identity theft." This is where it's
not just that the person may or may not have opened
accounts in your name; the person's arrested for a
crime and gives your name instead of their own. Your
name goes into an arrest database, a warrant database,
perhaps, and the next time you have a traffic
violation you spend the night in jail.
MS. HILLEBRAND indicated that [Article 6] was designed not to
deal with all kinds of identity theft or all the problems
relating to civil identity theft, but to address the situation
outlined in [paragraph (1), text provided previously]. She
continued:
There are two individuals; there's a real crime;
there's a real criminal; but that criminal has given
an innocent person's name. And the idea here is for
the innocent person, in that situation, to go to court
and show quickly, "This is me; I'm not the crook; give
me a piece of paper so I don't have to spend the night
in jail every time I get pulled over." And that's
what this is designed for, and that's why it's so
narrowly tied to the criminal system.
MS. HILLEBRAND, in response to Representative Gara, confirmed
that the word missing after "theft;", on page 25, line 30, is
"or".
[VICE CHAIR NEUMAN returned the gavel to Chair Olson.]
4:52:15 PM
CHAIR OLSON closed public testimony.
CHAIR OLSON announced that HB 65 was heard and held.
HB 163-PROPERTY FORECLOSURES AND EXECUTIONS
5:52:52 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the last order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 163, "An Act relating to real property
foreclosures, executions, and deeds of trust."
4:53:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 163, Version 25-LS0630\M, Bannister, 3/27/07, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version M was
before the committee.
4:54:16 PM
STEPHEN D. ROUTH, Attorney at Law, Routh Crabtree, told the
committee that he is present at the meeting out of concern
regarding "the wall of foreclosures that is hitting the Western
States now and will be coming to Alaska." He indicated that
Routh Crabtree was involved in finding improvements to the
current nonjudicial foreclosure procedure in Alaska, and that
involvement resulted in the proposed legislation. He said the
focus for improvement includes making the process less prone to
litigation and fairer to borrowers, lenders, and title insurers.
4:55:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said of the three aforementioned classes,
borrowers are the most vulnerable, and he requested
clarification regarding how the bill would benefit the
borrowers.
CHAIR OLSON said he would like to first hear an overview of the
entire bill.
4:56:58 PM
MR. ROUTH explained that the nonjudicial process is one whereby
real estate can be taken back without litigation if payments are
not being made on it. He relayed that it is important to be
careful with notices and the impact on others, because there is
no judge involved in the process. One current law regarding
[the sale of personal property] is that a notice must be posted
in three public places and one posting must be in a post office.
He said HB 163 proposes to delete the post office requirement,
because to date, two post office stations in Alaska have banned
the posting of public notices. The requirement for the three
postings would still exist, but one of them would no longer be
the post office.
MR. ROUTH directed attention to Section 2 of the bill. He
stated that the last thing on earth a financial institution
wants is a foreclosure, but if one must happen, the best thing
that can happen for a borrower is that the property sells at the
foreclosure auction to a third party with the money to pay for
the property. He explained that the third party will pay more
than the bank is owed, and the borrower typically will get the
extra money. He said it is a moral and legal obligation to
maximize the amount of a bid, and putting that information out
on the Internet is the best way to do that. He explained that
the most sophisticated marketers of real estate are real estate
brokers, and people get information about them and about
properties on the Internet. He added, "We're the most enabled
state on the web in the nation, so it's a natural for us to have
a requirement that if you have a foreclosure, you have to put it
on the web, as well as [list it in] traditional publication and
newspapers." He said newspaper listings are not highly read,
not attractive, and are full of legal jargon. He offered
further details.
5:01:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if a person who carried his/her own
papers on a property and sold it to someone who didn't make the
payments would be required to post that information on the
Internet.
MR. ROUTH replied yes. He continued:
Just like you are [required] to post in a newspaper:
same requirements; same kind of safeguards. And just
like with the newspaper, the way that would work in
practice is: the title insurance companies who insure
the foreclosure process by issuing a trustee sale
guaranty ... will give you a list of web sites, just
like they do newspapers, and say, "You have to publish
on one of these web sites and one of these papers."
MR. ROUTH, in response to a question from Representative LeDoux,
confirmed that in a nonjudicial foreclosure, the debt "goes
away." In response to a follow-up question related to his
previous comment that a third party will pay more than the bank
is owed, noted the only exception would be if there are other
liens. Typically, he said, there is one bank and one borrower,
thus the borrower "gets the check at the end."
MR. ROUTH turned to Section 4, regarding timelines for
reinstatements, which he said would change the notation of time
[on page 3, lines 15-16 of Version M] from "[THREE MONTHS]" to
90 days". He explained that since not all months have the same
number of days, saying three months is ambiguous. Section 5,
regarding mailing requirements, he said cleans up the language
to clarify who gets the written notice. Section 6, he noted,
carries on that clarification and addresses how lien claimants
can participate, thus reducing the need for litigation. [Due to
technical difficulties, there is no sound recording from 5:04:47
PM to 5:05:18 PM; that segment was reconstructed from Gavel to
Gavel's recording.] ... Section 7 says the trustee who conducts
the sale in the process can accept bids other than by standing
on the courthouse steps.
MR. ROUTH returned to Section 6, which addresses posting
requirements, what happens if the borrower is deceased, and how
to restrain a sale. He continued:
If the borrower's deceased right now, what happens is
you end up going to a probate master and trying to get
a ... special master appointed. The probate masters
are objecting to doing this now. So, we're suggesting
that we give notice there's a deceased borrower in a
special way that results in more notice to the heirs
than they would get if you went to the probate court.
It actually is better for the borrowers.
5:06:42 PM
Keep in mind that if there's expense in this process,
the more cumbersome the process becomes. If there is
a reinstatement of the loan by the borrower, it just
drives the cost up. So, if you're foreclosing and you
have to go to probate court and get an order, that
process costs $5,000; the borrower wants to reinstate
the loan - his reinstatement cost just went up $5,000.
So, the less we spend, the less litigation in the
process, the more we allow the borrower to get out of
the box if they're able to do so.
MR. ROUTH, returning to Section 7, said it would allow a trustee
to accept bids via the Internet, telephone, e-mail. He said,
"We can probably do it now; this just clarifies we can do it"
and would create a better, wider market. Section 8 discusses
who may conduct a sale, while Section 9 discusses how to
postpone a sale. Section 10 addresses how cash proceeds of a
sale are divided. Sections 11 and 12 deal with substitution of
a trustee and are both housekeeping measures. Section 13, he
outlined, would require that those who handle the vast sums of
money related to a foreclosure process are bonded for the
protection of borrowers and institutions.
5:08:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked Mr. Routh why he is "pushing this
legislation."
MR. ROUTH explained that he has been doing this kind of work for
25 years, and has seen the bad results of litigation and the
money and time spent in court. He said foreclosures "hit"
Alaska back in the 80s, and he offered his belief that at that
time, Alaska rated the highest in delinquency ratios in the
nation for awhile. He warned that a "wall of foreclosures" is
on its way once more. Already, Texas is experiencing 8-10,000
foreclosures a month, while California is seeing approximately
6,000 foreclosures each month. Mr. Routh opined that Alaska
should ready itself and make the market "a little bit better for
borrowers," so that "we don't have a bunch of property that goes
back to banks, but gets back in the community for people who
want to buy it at auction, and the process is less litigation
prone."
5:09:32 PM
MR. ROUTH, in response to a question from Representative Buch,
explained a cause of the foreclosures is "teaser rate" loans,
with subsequent rate increases to the point where "the payment
gets behind the means."
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH said he heard from a constituent on this
matter, and he expressed interest in finding a solution to this
problem through legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked if the passage of HB 163 would
benefit Mr. Routh or his firm in any fashion.
MR. ROUTH replied that this would reduce litigation done by his
firm. He continued:
The foreclosure piece doesn't make any difference;
we'll do that either way. That's [an] easy to fix,
fee-type event. The web site piece: we, like every
trustee and attorney that does this, have web sites.
Whether we qualify or not for this web site
requirement, I don't know; we have not analyzed them.
5:11:39 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked if anyone has expressed opposition to HB 163.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS answered no. He said Mr. Routh appears to
be working on the proposed legislation for "the greater good of
the process of disposing of distressed real estate." He said he
likes to "identify vulnerable subsets in our communities," and
in this case, homeowner borrowers are that vulnerable subset.
He noted that concurrent legislation is being carried in the
Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked Mr. Routh if he anticipates there
would be any increase in costs of real estate transactions
should HB 163 be enacted.
MR. ROUTH replied no, not in the normal buy/sell transaction of
house buying. The only area in which he said he could foresee a
minor cost increase might be in the cost of "flopping the
property on the Internet." However, with all the competition
and sites available on the Internet, he said he suspects that
would not amount to much. He pointed out that the drop in
litigation fees would mean less money spent.
5:15:48 PM
[Due to technical difficulties, there is no sound recording from
5:16:14 PM to 5:17:17 PM; that segment was reconstructed from
Gavel to Gavel's recording.]
MR. ROUTH, in response to a comment made by Representative
Ramras, reviewed once more how the use of the Internet would
expand awareness of available properties up for bid and, thus,
result in a win/win situation for both the borrower and the
bidder.
CHAIR OLSON asked if there was anyone else who wished to
testify. [No one responded.]
5:16:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX moved to report CSHB 163, Version 25-
LS0630\M, Bannister, 3/27/07, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 163(L&C).
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:17:17 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|