Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/08/1993 02:05 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
April 8, 1993
2:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator George Jacko
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Suzanne Little
OTHERS PRESENT
Representative Terry Martin
Representative Joe Green
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 144
"An Act relating to fees for certain costs of administering
the permanent fund dividend program."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 168(STA)
"An Act relating to newspapers of general circulation."
HOUSE BILL NO. 99
"An Act repealing the 65-day time limit for approval or
disapproval of a proposed oil discharge contingency plan by
the Department of Environmental Conservation; and providing
for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 155
"An Act relating to landlords and tenants, to termination of
tenancies and recovery of rental premises, to tenant
responsibilities, to the civil remedies of forcible entry
and detainer and nuisance abatement, and to the duties of
peace officers to notify landlords of arrests involving
certain illegal activity on rental premises."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 144 - See Judiciary minutes dated 3/31/93.
SB 168 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/22/93 and
3/24/93. See Judiciary minutes dated 4/2/93.
.
HB 99 - See Judiciary minutes dated 3/31/93.
SB 155 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/24/93.
See Judiciary minutes dated 4/2/93.
WITNESS REGISTER
Steve McHenry, Editor
VALDEZ VANGUARD
Box 98
Valdez, Alaska 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 168.
Patrick Lynn
Box 123
Valdez, Alaska 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 168.
Robert Gould, Owner
ALASKA JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
880 N Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 168.
Virginia Ragle, Asst. Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 168.
David Skidmore, Aide
Senator Steve Frank
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 155.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-40, SIDE A
Number 001
Chairman Robin Taylor called the Judiciary Committee meeting
to order at 2:05 p.m.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced HB 144 (FEE FOR PERMANENT FUND
DIVIDEND ASSIGNMENTS/CLAIMS) and invited the sponsor,
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN to testify on his bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN reviewed the background information on
the garnisheeing of PFD checks for those delinquent on IRS
payments, child support payments, student loans, and other
obligations. He explained the program had been so
successful it has increased the processing cost, which comes
out of everyone's check. He said the bill would allow the
Permanent Fund Dividend Division to take the processing
costs from the check of the person whose check is
garnisheed.
SENATOR JACKO asked for the history on the garnishee
process, and REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN explained about four
years ago the legislature allowed the government departments
to have access to the PFD Division checks to pay delinquent
loans, which has allowed the state to recoup money from
student loans and child support payments.
There ensued a discussion of how the process would work and
the saving to the PFD recipients. There was no fiscal note.
Number 076
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN for his
testimony and held the bill for action when there is a
quorum.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced SB 168 (NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL
CIRCULATION DEFINED) sponsored by the Senate State Affairs
Committee, and indicated he was going to begin with
testimony from the teleconference network on the work draft,
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 168(JUD). He turned the
teleconference network to Valdez to hear from STEVE MCHENRY,
Editor of the VALDEZ VANGUARD.
MR. MCHENRY said he didn't think the bill was needed, and it
was getting into the realm of free press. On page 2 of the
committee substitute, he referred to lines 10 through 12
which read ";and has a total paid circulation of at least 10
percent of the total population of the judicial district;"
and he said "paid circulation" was not defined under the
bill. As with the newspapers in both his area and in Homer
with the HOMER NEWS, he explained many of the papers were
purchased in outlets around town. He didn't want paid
circulation to mean subscriptions only, since people bought
more papers from vendors than with subscriptions in Valdez.
He thought second class mailing permits should be required
which forces newspapers to give a fair and accurate account
of their circulation.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. MCHENRY if he published any notices
on sales of execution in his paper.
MR. MCHENRY said that he did get some state legal notices,
but do not get city notices. He explained the other paper
in town had the city contract.
Number 164
SENATOR TAYLOR clarified he meant sales on execution on real
property such as foreclosures, and MR. MCHENRY said he
didn't get those.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained that Section 1. AS 09.35.140 deals
exclusively with executions on sales of property, and MR.
MCHENRY said those notices were printed in the ALASKA DAILY
NEWS and the ALASKA JOURNAL OF COMMERCE out of Anchorage.
He didn't ever recall seeing that particular notice in the
VALDEZ VANGUARD.
Also in Valdez, SENATOR TAYLOR called on PATRICK LYNN.
MR. LYNN said he was totally opposed to the original bill,
and he explained he had written letters to the sponsor, as
well as other senators, protesting. He also explained how
the legislation would have a negative impact on every weekly
newspaper in the State of Alaska and would discourage new
newspapers from starting.
MR. LYNN said Valdez has two newspapers, and noted he had
started the second newspaper in town. He explained his
three-year process to become a paid circulation newspaper.
He said the BARROW WHALER was going through the same process
to establish a newspaper there, and he explained how the
bill would discourage those kinds of endeavors. He listed
the reasons why he thought the bill was unfair to business.
MR. LYNN described a letter he had received from ROBERT
GOULD, owner of the ALASKA JOURNAL OF COMMERCE, offering to
amend the bill to make it apply to foreclosure and default
notices only if he would retract his objections. He quoted
his answer to MR. GOULD, which would effect a compromise on
the notices, and suggested he was in a difficult position on
the bill today.
MR. LYNN thought the bill had no value except to settle a
squabble between the ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS and the ALASKA
JOURNAL OF COMMERCE. He explained how the bill had affected
the relationship between STEVE MCHENRY and himself, and how
it would damage or exclude competition among the smaller
newspapers, which he named.
Number 235
SENATOR TAYLOR next turned the teleconference network to
Anchorage to hear testimony from MR. GOULD.
Number 289
MR. GOULD clarified he was testifying from the correct
committee substitute and stated the legislation would only
amend Title 9, which speaks to default sales. He said the
issue was to promote competition and would only limit the
competition to the exclusive area of default sale notices.
He discussed the comfort level of the other newspapers, the
need for specificity in the statutes to define applicable
language to default notices printed in a newspaper of
general circulation or of general interest, and he reviewed
the changes in the committee substitute from the original
bill. He defended the passage in the bill that was disputed
by MR. MCHENRY as to the paid circulation being 10% of the
total population, but he suggested this could be changed.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced VIRGINIA RAGLE, Asst. Attorney
General from the Department of Law, to testify.
MS. RAGLE explained she had been asked to review the
original bill to identify any problems that might be
identified by state agencies, to which the Department of Law
provides advice. Her comments are confined to the original
bill.
Number 339
MS. RAGLE explained in her research she found 80 statutes
which refer to newspapers of general circulation, and she
reviewed the various kinds of notices that were required by
state agencies, municipalities, corporations, partnerships,
and individuals. She thought in reviewing the publication
notice procedures for all of the statutes, the legislators
would find some unintended results. She questioned the need
for a definition of "newspaper of general circulation,"
since there has been no significant litigation calling into
question the validity of notices that has been provided in
accordance with the 80 statutes.
MS. RAGLE recommended the bill be narrowly drafted to
identify and solve on-going problems. In regards to the
committee substitute, she advised the ALASKA JOURNAL OF
COMMERCE did not meet the membership of 10% of the total
population of the Third Judicial District.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to adopt CS FOR SENATE BILL NO.
168(JUD) with unanimous consent. Without objections, so
ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR indicated he would hold the bill for another
hearing.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked for a motion to move House bill No. 144
from committee.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to pass HOUSE BILL NO. 144 (FEE FOR
PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND ASSIGNMENTS/CLAIMS) from committee
with individual recommendations. Without objections, so
ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR returned HB 99 (REPEAL 65-DAY DEADLINE: OIL
SPILL PLANS) and invited the sponsor, REPRESENTATIVE JOE
GREEN, to testify.
Number 398
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained, currently, AS 46.04.030(p)
requires the Department of Environmental Conservation to
"...approve or disapprove a proposed contingency plan within
65 days after it receives a complete application ...". He
further explained the time-line necessitated by the 65 day
statutory requirement conflicts with the time-line set out
in the Alaska Coastal Management Plan regulations carried
out by the Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC).
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the conflict between the two time-
lines make the progress cumbersome for both the applicant
and members of the public wishing to participate in the
review process. He said the removal of the 65 day statutory
requirement allows the DEC and DGC to coordinate their time
lines for approving contingency plans.
SENATOR LITTLE asked for clarified as to what the provision
actually does. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said an applicant is
not sure which time-line to follow, and he explained there
were two over-lapping agencies, whose time clocks don't
correspond.
SENATOR LITTLE commented that the DEC time clock starts
first and asked if getting a permit would take longer.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained how the two agencies, which
support the bill, would coordinate their efforts and clean
up the problem.
SENATOR LITTLE asked for any downside to the bill.
Number 437
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said there was some concern the bill
did not address an interior oil spill contingency plan, and
he explained the DGC would be the responsible agency.
Number 437
SENATOR HALFORD moved to pass HOUSE BILL NO. 99 (REPEAL
65-DAY DEADLINE: OIL SPILL PLANS) from committee with
individual recommendations. Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR returned SB 155 (USE OF RENTED PROPERTY/LAW
VIOLATIONS) to committee and clarified which teleconference
sites were available for testimony. He then called on DAVID
SKIDMORE, Aide to the prime sponsor, SENATOR STEVE FRANK, to
testify.
Number 454
MR. SKIDMORE explained SENATOR FRANK had introduced SB 155
in response to constituent concerns over the seeming
impunity for abuses that the tenants were enjoying, and he
reviewed the changes proposed to the statutes concerning the
landlord-tenant relationship.
MR. SKIDMORE said SENATOR FRANK had two amendments to
propose. The first one dealing with prostitution, which he
explained was designated as assignation, and defined as 8-
LSO376\K.16, Chenoweth, 4/2/93.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt Amendment #1 as designated by
SENATOR FRANK.
SENATOR LITTLE questioned whether a person has to be
convicted or just have an assignation of the act of
prostitution, and MR. SKIDMORE said the amendment would
include "assignation" as a grounds for which a neighbor
could take another neighbor to court, given the failure of a
landlord to take care of a problem. He said assignation
related to the nuisance abatement statute. The court would
have to determine if a nuisance does exist, that assignation
had taken place, in order for a tenant to be evicted.
SENATOR LITTLE clarified it would require a court
determination in this case.
SENATOR TAYLOR wondered why assignation was being discussed
when the amendment did not refer to it. MR. SKIDMORE
apologized saying the term was described by MR. CHENOWETH,
but was now an obsolete term. He said it was currently
designated as "illegal activity involving a place of
prostitution." SENATOR TAYLOR thought this was a better
definition and would answer some of the questions from
SENATOR LITTLE.
Number 516
SENATOR TAYLOR returned to Amendment #1, which was passed
without objections.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved Amendment #2, 8-LSO376\K.17, Chenoweth,
4/2/93 for SENATOR FRANK. He asked MR. SKIDMORE for an
explanation.
MR. SKIDMORE referred the committee members to page 9, line
10, Section 18, which makes the tenant's obligations more
stringent by eliminating the qualifying adjectives from AS
34.03120. Paragraph (1) amends AS 34.03.120(a)(5) in Section
18 and refers to substantial damages caused by the landlord.
There was a discussion on the placement of the amendment,
which was inserted on page 10, beginning with line 16, while
the conditions for the eviction were contained in paragraph
(1) on page 9, beginning with line 22.
SENATOR TAYLOR checked to see that everyone understood
Amendment #2, before it was adopted without objections.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. DONLEY how he wished to offer his
amendments.
SENATOR DONLEY moved to adopt Amendment #3, 8-LSO376\K.3,
Chenoweth, 3/19/93. He was asked to explain his amendment.
TAPE 93-40, SIDE B
Number 001
SENATOR DONLEY explained his amendment would change the
amount of the security deposit to the value of three months
rent, but the subsection would not apply to a rental unit if
the rent exceeded $1000 a month. He explained the practical
aspects of the amendment in relation to the rental of a
house.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. SKIDMORE if SENATOR FRANK had any
objection to Amendment #3, and he indicated all of SENATOR
DONLEY'S amendments had been approved by the sponsor.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved Amendment #3 without objections.
SENATOR DONLEY moved to adopt Amendment #4, 8-LSO376\K.6,
Chenoweth, 3/18/93 and explained the time requirements in
the statute for the summons and continuance are clumsy at
present.
He further explained the reasoning behind his amendment
dealing with shortening to less than two days the summons in
actions for forcible entry and detainer.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved Amendment #4 without objections.
SENATOR DONLEY moved to adopt Amendment #5, 8-LSO376\K.7,
Chenoweth, 3/19/93. He explained the amendment deals with
the inability of landlord to protect their property if the
tenant does not pay the utility bill, and he described the
aftermath of frozen pipes.
Number 515
SENATOR DONLEY explained that not paying the utility was a
breach in the obligation of tenancy, and the amendment
allows the landlord to recover and protect the property.
Another provision in the amendment deals with the changing
of locks by tenants, making it impossible for the landlord
to have access for emergencies. He gave some examples where
the locks could be changed, as long as a set of key were
given to the landlord within 5 days along with a written
notice of the change. The third provision of this amendment
requires the landlord to notify when the utilities are
turned off. They discussed various agreements that can be
made between the landlord and tenant.
In answer to a question by SENATOR JACKO on the utilities,
SENATOR DONLEY gave an example of abuses of utility
agreements, where tenants turn off the utilities sooner than
expected. In most of his scenarios the landlord gets stuck
with the last month's bill.
Number 111
SENATOR LITTLE asked if he had heard from any utility
companies regarding the amendment.
SENATOR DONLEY said it was in the House version last year,
but the utilities prefer the utility agreements. He said it
was clearly the burden of the landlord to ask the utilities
for the agreement.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked SENATOR DONLEY why he changed the two
mandatory provisions that existed on page 9, lines 11
through 26, Section 5 and 6 of the amendment. SENATOR
DONLEY said it was a style change by DAVID DIERDORFF,
Revisor of Statutes. They decided it was more grammatically
correct.
SENATOR LITTLE asked about SENATOR DONLEY'S use of "ordinary
and nonabusive," and whether nonabusive was ever defined.
She discussed her reluctance to use an undefined word.
SENATOR TAYLOR clarified it was not SENATOR DONLEY'S
amendment and that it was a language change. They decided
to asked MR. SKIDMORE, who defended the use of "nonabusive"
rather than reasonable. SENATOR TAYLOR described some of
the abuses by tenants of equipment, and he thought this was
SENATOR LEMAN'S choice, but he wasn't sure it was a legal
definition. He told SENATOR LITTLE that lawyers often use
Black's Law Dictionary for definitions.
Number 177
SENATOR LITTLE wanted to make a point of her objection to
nonabusive as an undefined word and as a substitute for
deliberately or negligently in the statute. She gave some
reasons for her objections.
SENATOR TAYLOR agreed some of her objections were warranted,
and there was some discussion on the word, nonabusive,
within the committee, with SENATOR DONLEY supporting the
word, nonabusive, over deliberately or negligently. There
was general agreement on his description of major
destruction by tenants. SENATOR JACKO asked if it was a
reason to throw out a tenant, and SENATOR DONLEY said it was
more of a fine tuning of existing requirements.
SENATOR LITTLE explained why she thought unreasonably should
stay in the amendments, and SENATOR TAYLOR explained why it
was difficult to prove what is a reasonable level of
disturbance from tenants.
Number 263
MR. SKIDMORE referred to SENATOR FRANK'S Amendment #2,
paragraph (3) to address the concerns expressed by SENATOR
LITTLE. He read from the amendment: "(3) constituting
noncompliance by the tenant with the rental agreement, other
than a provision of the rental agreement that addresses an
obligation imposed by AS 34.03.120(a), detrimentally affect
the landlord's investment in the premises, the quiet
enjoyment of the premises by other tenants, or the use and
occupancy of adjacent premises."
SENATOR TAYLOR suggested the committee members might want to
act on parts of Amendment #5, but there was no agreement.
SENATOR TAYLOR adopted Amendment #5 without objections.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt SENATOR DONLEY'S Amendment #6,
8-LSO376\K.8, Chenoweth, 3/18/93. SENATOR DONLEY gave an
example of his provision in the amendment to allow landlords
to remove personal property not covered by the rental
agreement. Presently, there is no legal access to do this.
In answer to questions by SENATOR JACKO, SENATOR DONLEY
explained how the amendment differs from existing law.
Number 317
SENATOR TAYLOR said SENATOR DONLEY'S Amendment #6 was
adopted by the committee without objections.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained SENATOR DONLEY'S Amendment #7 was
identified as 8-LSO376\K.9, Chenoweth, 3/19/93. SENATOR
DONLEY said this amendment was clean-up language in
reference to the rights of the landlord to access the
dwelling unit except as referenced.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if there was a definition for
"abandoned" or "surrendered." SENATOR JACKO said there was
no precise definition, and SENATOR TAYLOR gave an example of
transients who abandon property. SENATOR DONLEY said that
was addressed in a later amendment, Amendment #10, that
adds: "The landlord may reenter the dwelling unit and, if
there is evidence that the tenant has abandoned the dwelling
unit, unless the landlord and tenant have made a specific
agreement to the contrary, the landlord may terminate the
rental agreement," to AS 34.03.230(b) to terminate tenancy.
Number 382
SENATOR JACKO thought it was difficult to be a tenant.
SENATOR DONLEY explained many of the problems have not been
addressed for a long time, and he reviewed some of these
problems. SENATOR JACKO said his family owned an apartment
building, and they had not encountered some of the severe
problems addressed by the amendments.
SENATOR DONLEY claimed he did want protection for tenants,
also, but he wanted to give landlords tools to deal with a
small percentage of tenants, who have learned to use the
system unfairly. He explained it was tragic for the good
tenants, because they all pay an additional price for rent
for all of the intentionally bad tenants. He thought it
would help the good tenants.
Number 448
SENATOR JACKO continued to defend the present practices as a
cost of doing business, and he was concerned about the
rights of the tenants.
SENATOR TAYLOR summarize some of the possible horror stories
on both sides of the landlord/tenant transactions.
MR. SKIDMORE thought SENATOR DONLEY'S time frame of seven
days was reasonable, and he recited current statutes as
proof.
SENATOR TAYLOR adopted Amendment #7 with no objections.
SENATOR TAYLOR identified SENATOR DONLEY'S Amendment #8 as
8-LSO376\K.10, Chenoweth, 3/19/93. SENATOR DONLEY explained
this amendment would allow landlords to serve a notice to
quit tenancy upon a tenant if they fail to keep the
utilities current. He said it added to the list for notice
of eviction.
SENATOR JACKO triggered a discussion with other members of
tenants living without utilities, the abuses, the options,
and the court proceedings.
Number 537
SENATOR LITTLE asked for more explanation on the amendment,
and SENATOR DONLEY explained it was more than non-payment,
it was a disconnect. He read from the amendment to explain,
"the landlord may deliver a written notice to the tenant
advising that .... the tenancy will terminate five days
after the tenant's receipt of the notice" if they don't
reconnect the utilities. SENATOR TAYLOR gave some further
explanation on the discontinued service .....
TAPE 93-41, SIDE A
Number 001
.... and SENATOR DONLEY said Alaska Legal Services provides
the defense for tenants.
With no further objects, SENATOR TAYLOR declared Amendment
SENATOR DONLEY moved to adopt Amendment #9, 8-LSO376\K.11,
Chenoweth, 3/18/93, and explained it was a very important
provision for relations between landlords and tenants. He
quoted current statutes dealing with falling behind on the
rent, and the offer by the tenant to pay less than full
rent. He explained how this would effect the notice of
eviction and the relationship with the tenant so he
included: "A landlord who has given written notice to the
tenant under this subsection may accept a partial payment of
the rent due under the rental agreement and extend the date
for the eviction accordingly." He said it would allow
mitigation among the parties. Without objection, Amendment
Number 080
SENATOR TAYLOR defined SENATOR DONLEY'S Amendment #10 as 8-
LSO376\K.12, Chenoweth, 3/19/93. SENATOR DONLEY explained
this amendment was discussed previously in reference to an
amendment, which would allow the landlord to enter a
possible abandoned dwelling unit. Amendment #10 was adopted
without objection.
SENATOR TAYLOR defined SENATOR DONLEY'S Amendment #11 as 8-
LSO376\K.13, Chenoweth, 3/18/93. SENATOR DONLEY explained
Amendment #11 deals with a confusing portion of the law,
which elicits the question, "How do you deal with property
that has been abandoned or left behind by a tenant." In
addition, he read his succinct changes to the archaic
structure of the original language in the statute. SENATOR
TAYLOR pointed out the contrasting directions in the
amendment, and SENATOR DONLEY checked for the context of the
amendment in the statutes. They agreed there were specific
requirements, which they planned to research at a later
time. SENATOR TAYLOR moved Amendment #11 from committee
without objections.
Number 158
SENATOR LITTLE proposed another amendment, Amendment #12, 8-
LSO376\K.18, Chenoweth, 4/6/93, which would change the title
of the bill and would insert new sections in the bill to
provide for mediation between the tenant and the landlord in
order to avoid court action, which is presently the only
solution for disputes. She explained that many states
already have realized benefits from mediation between
landlords and tenants, and she thought her amendment would
be fair to both parties.
SENATOR LITTLE further explained it had to be agreed upon by
both parties before mediation took place, and either party
could withdraw from mediation at any time. She said it
wouldn't slow down the proceedings, but would make it less
expensive for both parties if they agree to resolve a
problem. She concluded her explanation of Amendment #12
with the benefits of the procedure, to save the state money,
and work out problems without court participation.
SENATOR JACKO asked SENATOR LITTLE why her amendment didn't
require mediation first, and she said it may not be
appropriate in all cases. She said she was following along
with permissive laws provided in other states. SENATOR
JACKO asked if her amendment was similar to that of other
states.
SENATOR TAYLOR said, in most other states, they did not
adopt the landlord/tenant laws similar to those of Alaska,
and said he didn't know of another state with such liberal
laws as Alaska. He gave some history on the bill from
previous years and said there were many problems in Alaska
that needed to be addressed.
SENATOR JACKO asked about amending her amendment to make
mediation a requirement instead of permissive.
SENATOR TAYLOR thought such an amendment would destroy the
aim of the original purposes of the bill and add an
additional layer on the legislation that currently exists -
that would make it intolerable to people.
Number 224
SENATOR JACKO defended the mediation requirement, and
SENATOR TAYLOR suggested it would be difficult to find the
tenant to mediate. He said the tenant will intentionally
dodge the landlord who is trying to serve them with the
eviction notice. SENATOR JACKO suggested using a
requirement to reasonably attempt to mediate, which wouldn't
be used if the tenant was avoiding contact.
SENATOR DONLEY thought it could be a suggestion that
landlords might want to include in their rental agreements
mediation clauses. He claimed the problem with mediation
would be that it wouldn't resolve anything, and he explained
his reasons. He didn't have a problem with adding a
suggestion for mediation so long as it is not mandatory.
Number 289
SENATOR JACKO said he didn't dispute SENATOR DONLEY, but was
expressing his concern for tenants in general, and that
landlords may abuse some of the tenants.
SENATOR TAYLOR described constitutional problems with
denying someone their right to go to court, which would make
the mandatory aspect of the amendment unconstitutional.
SENATOR JACKO continued to protect the reasonable mediation
feature of the legislation. SENATOR LITTLE said she would
continue to research the possibilities.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved for adoption of Amendment #12. Without
objections, so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR referenced a proposed amendment, Amendment
which "Proposed for addition to the forcible entry and
detainer law (AS 09.45.070 - 09.45.160) in SB is a new
section, bill section 6. It would add AS 09.45.125 and, in
essence, give the landlord, who prevails in a forcible entry
and detainer action the right to apply to the court
immediately for a writ of assistance to secure the eviction
of the tenant."
SENATOR DONLEY moved Amendment #13. Without objections, so
ordered.
SENATOR DONLEY moved to pass CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 155(JUD)
from committee with individual recommendations. There were
objections from SENATOR LITTLE. Roll call placed the vote
at 2-2, and the bill stayed in committee.
There being no further business to come before the
committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|