Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 124
02/09/2005 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB107 | |
| HB130 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 107 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 107-ATTY FEES: HUNTING/FISHING INTERFERENCE 1:04:06 PM CO-CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 107 "An Act providing for the award of full actual attorney fees and costs to a person aggrieved by unlawful obstruction or hindrance of hunting, fishing, or viewing of fish or game; amending Rules 79 and 82, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and amending Rule 508, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure." CO-CHAIR SAMUELS moved to adopt the CSHB 107, Version 24- LS0444\F Utermohle, 2/7/05, as a work draft. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion purposes. The committee took an at-ease from 1:05 PM to 1:09:25 PM. 1:09:38 PM JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Jay Ramras, described the changes made to HB 107. He said "we added in language that was in the section 790 which was the proceeding of the original bill." He added that "in discussions with the Alaska State Troopers and the court system, these are additions that they thought would help, particularly with the court system's fiscal note, possibly bringing it down to zero." MR. POUND noted that the first addition is on page 2, lines 4 and 5, "this is based on a criminal situation in which the individual actually cut a trap line and released the animals, but because of the existing statute the only thing they could charge the individual with was criminal mischief." The second change, he said, is on page 2, lines 14 and 15, and is based on a suit that was recently settled. He said the state was sued after a fish and wildlife enforcement helicopter disrupted a commercial fishing operation. Mr. Pound said the change will protect police officers and law enforcement officials from being sued for obstruction. MR. POUND stated that regarding full attorney fees, "in most of the cases that we'll be looking at that's in Section 791, that's the original language of the bill, we are normally dealing with something that [has] already had a criminal conviction. This is primarily language intended to further induce individuals not to obstruct people enjoying the Alaska lifestyle, similar to what the criminal side of it would be." Mr. Pound said the original language in statute contains the term "intentionally obstruct," which is described in Black's Law as he read: "to do something purposefully and not accidentally," and "a person acts intentionally if he desires to cause consequences of his acts or he believes that consequences are substantially certain to result." REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he noticed that obstruction offenses do not apply to lawful competitive practices among persons engaged in lawful hunting, fishing, or trapping. He expressed his concern that the laws regarding the distance between nets in a gill net fishery may result in unlawful fishing practices. "Therefore," he said, "commercial fishing in those situations would be included in this full award of attorney fees for the plaintiff." He asked Mr. Pound if that is correct. 1:14:12 PM MR. POUND said he believes Representative Seaton is correct. CO-CHAIR RAMRAS closed public testimony after no one came forward to testify. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection to the adoption of CSHB 107, Version 24-LS0444\F Utermohle, 2/7/05,. There being no further objection, Version F was before the committee. CO-CHAIR SAMUELS moved to report CSHB 107, Version F, out of committee. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that there could be unanticipated consequences by including commercial fishermen. If a fisherman is sued for having nets too close to another fisherman's nets, the plaintiff could get full attorney fees and the defendant would be limited by Rule 82 of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure. "So I do not think that we have solved that problem in this bill," he said. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she has the same problem with the legislation, and it "goes beyond the commercial fishing aspect of things, although I see that, actually, as the most significant problem." She said that the ability of the plaintiff to get full attorney fees and the defendant, even if fully exonerated, is limited to 30 percent of the attorney fees - "that just strikes me as fundamentally unfair." REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that the legislation also takes out the word "reasonable," so that there won't be consideration of the number of lawyers. The defendant could be charged full and actual attorney fees "no matter how egregious" the costs and fees are, he said. He also warned that "we may have people loading up attorney fees to make the other person default on the case instead of having the case go to court." 1:18:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said a person suing for $3,000 could have attorney fees build up to $10,000. Without Rule 82 a litigant could hire a "bank of attorneys" knowing he or she could get those fees back. He said he is concerned that there will be people not willing to take a risk because they could afford to pay judgment but not attorney fees, and intimidation will cause them to default in the judgment. 1:20:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS said that he had the same concern. "I can't support this." 1:20:15 PM CO-CHAIR RAMRAS said, "...let's take it back and we'll work on it some more, clean it up, and bring it back." [HB 107 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|