Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/16/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 222: USE OF RENTED PROPERTY/LAW VIOLATIONS Number 214 MS. HORETSKI called the committee's attention to a draft committee substitute for HB 222, dated April 13, 1993 (CSHB 222 (JUD)). She outlined changes made in the bill, which were amendments adopted by the committee at the last hearing on HB 222. The first change appeared on page 5, line 6, and added to the list of activities which constituted a nuisance "illegal activity involving a place of prostitution." She stated that language on lines 14 and 15 cross-referenced that change. MS. HORETSKI stated that new language also appeared on page 5, line 21, new subsection (2), and provided that if a person had been sued repeatedly over a nuisance, the court would be able to review court records detailing that history. She pointed out another change, located on page 10, lines 6-7 of CSHB 222 (JUD). The phrase "prostitution, an illegal activity involving a place of prostitution" had been added, she stated. She commented that language beginning on page 10, line 23, and continuing through page 11, line 4 was also new. MS. HORETSKI explained the effect of the new language was to describe which acts or omissions would constitute sufficient breach of the lease to trigger the 24-hour notice provisions. She stated that under current law, a landlord had to give a tenant at least ten days' notice for eviction. Under certain specified circumstances in the committee substitute, she said, a tenant could be given 24 hours' notice. The new language set out those circumstances in which a landlord could give a tenant 24 hours' notice. Those circumstances pertained to damage, she said, and not to non-payment of rent. MS. HORETSKI stated that new language on lines 18-20, and line 26 of page 12 cross referenced other changes. The final change appeared on page 13, lines 7-8, and represented a conforming amendment, she said. She again explained that the changes which she had just described were the result of amendments adopted by the committee at the last hearing on HB 222. MS. HORETSKI explained further that there were two general civil court rules about effective dates of court orders. She stated that questions had been raised as to whether or not HB 222 changed those rules, and if so, whether the title needed to be altered to reflect those court rule changes. She commented that the court had the authority to adopt rules of procedure, and the legislature had the authority to set substantive laws. Unfortunately, she said, the line between procedure and substance was not always clearly drawn. MS. HORETSKI expressed an opinion that there was a legitimate argument that HB 222's provisions made substantive changes in a landlord's rights regarding his or her property, and were, therefore, within the legislature's purview. If the court concluded that it needed to adopt new rules as a result of HB 222's passage, she said, then the court was free to do so. She noted that if the committee felt that HB 222 represented a substantive change, then no title amendment was necessary, and the bill would not require a 2/3 floor vote. Number 369 CHAIRMAN PORTER believed that HB 222 represented a substantive change, not a procedural one. Number 378 MS. HORETSKI explained that all bills which passed the legislature were presumed to include a clause which said that if any portion of a statute failed, the rest of the statute was severable and was to be given effect to the extent that the court could do so. Number 385 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that concerns had been expressed about shortening notice periods from ten days to five days, in instances of non-payment of rent. She said that she would not be opposed to changing the notice period back to ten days in such instances. Number 401 MS. HORETSKI responded that the change which Representative James had suggested could easily be accomplished in CSHB 222 (JUD). Number 404 REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND echoed Ms. Horetski's remarks, and was supportive of such a change. Number 410 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to AMEND section 21 of CSHB 222 (JUD), to change the notice period from five days to ten days in instances of non-payment of rent, as was provided in current law. Number 417 MS. HORETSKI mentioned that the committee had not yet adopted CSHB 222 (JUD). Number 420 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 222 (JUD), dated April 13, 1993. There being no objection, IT WAS ADOPTED. Number 423 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES MOVED the AMENDMENT changing the five- day notice period back to a ten-day period. Number 426 MS. HORETSKI commented that section 21 of CSHB 222 (JUD) could simply be struck, as existing law provided for a ten- day notice period. But, she said, a conforming amendment also would be required in section 2 of the bill. She suggested removing "within five days" on line 14 and "within five" on line 16 of page 2. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she considered Ms. Horetski's suggestion a FRIENDLY AMENDMENT to her amendment. There being no objection to Representative James' amendment, IT WAS ADOPTED. Number 444 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 222 (JUD), as amended, out of committee, with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up SB 54. He mentioned that the committee had before it a proposed Judiciary Committee substitute (CSSB 54 (JUD)), and said that the bill's sponsor, Senator Rick Halford, concurred with the changes included in CSSB 54 (JUD).
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|