Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/13/1999 01:40 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 128-LEASE-PURCHASE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
CHAIRMAN MACKIE announced HB 128 to be up for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE LISA MURKOWSKI, sponsor of HB 128, said this is
basically the "rent to own" bill; this is a fledgling industry in
our state and is growing quickly throughout the country. It
applies to renting personal property mostly for people who are
temporary residents. This bill makes it clear for the consumer to
know what his or her obligations are and the lease/purchase owner's
disclosure requirements. There is nothing in the Alaska statutes
which addresses lease purchase situations. There have been no
specific problems in the industry; it's more preventative. Forty
four other states have similar legislation that addresses the
disclosure requirement. She said they looked at legislation from
South Dakota and received input from people within the industry in
Alaska.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if in the description of rent purchase
agreements, merchants don't require a security deposit or
downpayment. He asked if that was true in this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated that was true.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if there was a table that would establish what
a "fair market value" is and would it be the original purchase
price or depreciated value, for instance.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she understands that the purpose of
the fair market value disclosure is that there are no hidden
agendas. If you're going to rent it, it's going to cost so much
per week or month. If you want to purchase it, you want to know
what the value of the T.V. will be.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that there is a late fee of $5 and asked if
there was a restriction on the amount of the fee and is there some
other way for a business to recover the cost of someone's payment
being late.
Number 450
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI responded that the reason a nominal late
fee was placed in there is because typically within the industry
they don't charge a late fee. It came from the industry as being
a reasonable sum. Usually, property is either returned voluntarily
or it is repossessed.
MR. BRAD DENISON, testifying from New Jersey, said this bill is
very similar to what most of the other states have. It's based on
suggested legislation from the Council of State Governments which
is existing Virginia state law. As far as he knows, no one in the
industry is charging a security deposit; and he didn't think this
bill addressed that issue. Industry's position is that late fees
should be left up to the individual dealer and should depend on the
market place.
There is no table of fair market value if the merchandise is
damaged, but there is a formula that most dealers use to determine
the value of the property at any time. It's based on the cash
price of the goods at the outset of the transaction. For instance,
if at the outset a T.V. is valued at $300, the customer can buy it
by tendering an amount equal to the cash price less 50 percent of
all the rent paid. The is the formula for determining fair market
value. As a practical matter, when something happens to the goods,
it turns out to be a loss for everyone, because many customers
don't have the cash to pay for the T.V. It hasn't been a big issue
in the industry.
MR. DENISON explained the late fee of $5 is to recover the cost of
having to either make phone calls or send letters. It also serves
as an incentive for the customer to make on-time payments.
Number 532
SENATOR LEMAN moved to pass HB 128 with individual recommendations.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|