SJUD - 3/22/95 HB 9 DAMAGE TO PROPERTY BY MINORS SENATOR GREEN moved the adoption of SCSCSHB 9(JUD). Both Senators Ellis and Adams objected. WILDA WHITTAKER, legislative aide to Representative Therriault, sponsor of HB 9, testified. She explained changes made in the Senate Judiciary Committee substitute. The circumstances under which an individual could qualify to recover costs of an infraction committed by a minor is changed on line 22, page 2 through line 1, page 3. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the only change from the original version was to delete the parenthetical language from line 22 on page 2, to page 3, line 1. MS. WHITTAKER answered affirmatively. Number 554 SENATOR ELLIS questioned the rationale for the change. SENATOR TAYLOR explained subsection (A) on page 2 is a limitation upon the ability to execute against the judgement debtor's permanent fund dividend and provides exceptions. It would allow a writ of execution be issued against the minor in a civil action to recover damages and limits that amount to $10,000. The deletion in the Senate Judiciary Committee substitute removes certain hurdles requiring the establishment that the state of Alaska had acted to declare the juvenile a delinquent, or that the juvenile was convicted of a criminal offense. SENATOR ELLIS asked if the rationale is based on the fact that obtaining the judgement is difficult to do. SENATOR TAYLOR clarified there are significant exemptions provided by law that exempt people from the enforcement of a writ of execution, i.e. the Homestead exemption. He noted an individual must earn $30,000 per year before his/her salary can be executed upon. Number 526 SENATOR ELLIS asked if a judgement is made against a minor for damages in civil court, a criminal judgement would not be required to attach restitution. SENATOR TAYLOR replied affirmatively. SENATOR GREEN questioned why the limit was placed at $10,000 and what provisions would be made for damage over that amount. MS. WHITTAKER replied the $10,000 figure was determined to be the 1994 equivalent of the $2,000 limit in the statute updated in 1967. SENATOR GREEN questioned whether restitution should cover actual costs. SENATOR ELLIS stated the measure regarding the emancipation of minors that passed last year might provide an incentive for a parent to emancipate a minor if the restitution costs were increased, to avoid taking responsibility. SENATOR GREEN felt the amount to be arbitrary but not capricious. SENATOR TAYLOR commented tort reform supporters would consider this measure important because it caps liability. SENATOR ADAMS questioned whether the language change on page 1, line 11, would include foster parents as a liable party. MS. WHITTAKER responded that foster parents would be exempt. SENATOR ADAMS asked who would pay for the damages. Debate over whether the state would be liable ensued. SENATOR ADAMS asked if a child broke a window in a neighbor's home while playing ball, whether the child's permanent fund dividend would be garnished to pay for the damages. SENATOR TAYLOR noted the act must be intentional or knowing. Number 460 SENATOR ELLIS asked if SCSCSHB 9(JUD) contains an explicit exemption for foster parents or juveniles in state custody. MS. WHITTAKER replied Section B of the current statute exempts state agencies or its agents from liability for the acts of unemancipated minors in its custody. SENATOR GREEN moved SCSCSHB 9(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations. SENATOR ADAMS objected. The motion failed with Senators Green and Taylor voting "Yea," and Senators Ellis and Adams voting "Nay." SJUD - 3/22/95 HB 9 DAMAGE TO PROPERTY BY MINORS  SENATOR MILLER moved SCSCSHB 9(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations. There being objection a roll call vote was taken. The motion carried with Senators Miller, Green, and Taylor voting "Yea," and Senator Ellis voting "Nay."