SB 369 - POWERS OF APPOINTMENTS/TRUSTS/CREDITORS [Contains mention of the companion bill, HB 316.] Number 0026 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the committee would hear CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 369(RLS), "An Act relating to trusts, including trust protectors, trustee advisors, and transfers of trust interests, and to creditors' claims against property subject to a power of appointment; and providing for an effective date." He noted that there is a proposed amendment, hereafter referred to as Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 4, Line 4: Delete: "or" Insert: [or] Page 4, Line 6: Delete: [.] Insert; ; Page 4, Line 7: Insert: (5) the creditor is seeking to satisfy a  claim for child support. Page 5, Line 25, after "except," through line 30: Delete all material. Insert: (a) to the extent that a donee of an inter vivos or testamentary power of appointment (1) is permitted by the donor of the power to appoint the property to the donee's estate or to the creditors of the donee's estate; and (2) effectively exercises the power of appointment in favor of the donee's estate or the creditors of the donee's estate; or (b) when the creditor is seeking to satisfy a claim of child support. Number 0057 SUSAN SULLIVAN, Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED), Department of Revenue, testified via teleconference and said the CSED's concern with SB 369 and its companion bill - HB 316 - is that there will be an unintended consequence. She warned that certain provisions of this legislation would make it easier for an unscrupulous parent to avoid supporting his or her children. She offered that Amendment 1 would resolve this potential problem. Number 0147 HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg, House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, in response to a question, indicated that she had drafted Amendment 1. Number 0155 DIANE WENDLANDT, Assistant Attorney General, Collections and Support Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), testified via teleconference, stating simply that she has reviewed Amendment 1. MS. NOBREGA, in response to a question, pointed out that the portion of Amendment 1 that will alter page 5 of SB 369 begins after the word "except" on line 25. MS. SULLIVAN remarked that Ms. Wendlandt has suggested that the last line of Amendment 1 be amended to read: "(b) to the extent that the creditor is seeking to satisfy a claim of child support." MS. NOBREGA noted that such an amendment would merely involve deleting "when" and inserting "to the extent that". CHAIR ROKEBERG indicated that Amendment 1 would be amended to incorporate that suggestion. Number 0360 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [as amended]. There being no objection, Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that Section 1 contains a reference to another statute - AS 47.07.020(f) - and asked what that statute is. CHAIR ROKEBERG surmised that the "trust boys" probably made the suggestion to add that language to SB 369, thereby creating one of the differences between SB 369 and HB 316. MS. NOBREGA noted that AS 47.07.020(f), which says, "A person may not be denied eligibility for medical assistance under this chapter on the basis of a diversion of income, whether by assignment or after receipt of the income, into a Medicaid- qualifying trust", can be found in the chapter pertaining to medical assistance for needy persons. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that the reference in SB 369 to that statute is appropriate. CHAIR ROKEBERG agreed. He then suggested that the House Judiciary Standing Committee's [draft minutes] regarding HB 316 be included as part of the record for SB 396. Number 0547 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSSB 369(RLS), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 369(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.