Wednesday, February 6, 2013

I need to update the comment I made yesterday about the 5% surcharge on filing fees. That surcharge is in effect until next year. Although we’ve referred to it as a three year surcharge stemming from judicial restructuring in 2010, in fact, the surcharge effective date was delayed into 2011. I apologize for any confusion. Next year the judiciary will be back in its normal three year rotation to review fees and will recommend extending the surcharge and build it into the base fee structure.

The retention hearing schedule is starting to firm up. judges will be in for interviews on two evenings beginning at 5PM. The first hearing will be next Tuesday, February 5^th in the Ethan Allen Room. So far, Judges Cohen and Manley are confirmed for that night. The second hearing will be on Thursday, February 20^th in room 10. So far only Judge Gerety is scheduled. I’ll post an update as soon as I have more detail. The public hearing (which will cover all judges and the magistrate) will be on Tuesday, February 26^th also at 5PM. I expect that will be in room 11.

Tomorrow the Senate Judiciary Committee will return to S. 31 and attempt to mark up and vote out the bill. I’ll report back later in the day tomorrow. As always, thaks for reading.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Last Friday morning Penny Benelli and Lindsey Huddle appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to voice opposition to S.31. The committee requested that they suggest amendments or changes to the bill as introduced and get those changes to legislative counsel by today. I haven’t seen anything yet. the next hearing on this bill is Thursday. Their objections were that, in looking at the history of the family where money was flowing from, say, one set of parents to the couple that to exclude any of that history would lead to an unfair outcome. But they concede that third parties should not have to be subject to discovery of a last will & testaments and revocable trusts.

 

This morning I attended a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee where the Administrative Judge, the Court Administrator and his deputy presented some legislative changes. They are seeking a cleanup of some outdated sections on Chapter 17 in Title 4; an amendment to the USSJEA passed a few years ago; and repealing of a mandate that probate offices be kept in the four southern districts in which one of the two courts was closed. This change wouldn’t prevent those offices from remaining open but would simply remove the mandate and make it optional. The committee spent some time discussing juror questionnaires and concluded that any changes were best left to rulemaking.

 

Later today the same witnesses will return to discuss fees with the committee. Also, tomorrow the Ways and Means Committee will hear from the court about fees. I’ve learned that the court will ask that the 5% surcharge that was imposed on filing fees as part of judicial restructuring in 2010 be made permanent.

Thursday, January 31, 2013

The Senate has appointed its members to the Joint Judicial Retention  Committee. The members are: Senators Benning, Flory, Galbraith, and Nitka. This biennium chairmanship moves back to the House and Rep. Tom Koch is the new chair. Hearings on the judges should begin in early February although the calendar is not yet set. As soon as it becomes available I’ll post it here.

Yesterday Justice Dooley and Court Administrator Bob Greemore made a presentation to the Senate Appropriations Committee on the budget request of $2 million in the budget adjustment bill. Recall that the House passed bill contains that money. There seemed to be no opposition to the request in committee. In fact, the bulk of the hearing focused on an inter-departmental transfer of some $25,000; totally irrelevant to the budget deficit issue. It looks as though things should move smoothly for the judiciary. Fingers crossed.

Tomorrow morning the Senate Judiciary Committee will return to S. 31, the “Billings” bill. Two family practitioners with objections to the bill will be in to testify in opposition to the bill as written. I’ll report after that hearing.

Don’t forget the Bill Watch page on our website:
https://www.vtbar.org/UserFiles/files/LEGISLATIVE%20BILLWATCH/Bill%20Watch.pdf

 

Book mark that page so you can return to either read a bill or check its current status.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Wednesday January 30, 2013

This morning Uniform Law Commissioner Rich Cassidy testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act, a bill that has yet to be introduced. Rich chaired the ULC committee that drafted the act. This will be the second go round for the UCCCA, the first version of which failed to pass the Senate in the last session. His testimony was really just background for the committee to begin to understand the issue. There is an estimated 35,000 statutes across the country that may apply post conviction. There may be as many as 300 statutes that contain consequences of conviction in Vermont. He also said that some estimate that 100,000 Vermonters may have a conviction in their past.

So what would this bill do? It would require the collection and updating of the list of collateral consequences. It requires notice to a defendant of the concept of collateral consequences that may be out there. it regulates the effect of collateral consequences from state to state and it would provide limited relief from some consequences.

As we know some consequences of a conviction are automatic (collateral sanctions) while others are discretionary (disqualifications). As I understand it the bill would make all sanctions discretionary and provide states specific grounds to exercise that discretion.

Check out this website for the list of consequences in Vermont, one of twelve states to have been researched to date: http://www.abacollateralconsequences.org/

Also, if you haven’t seen it yet, we created a Bill Watch page on our website where you can find those bills that we are tracking. Here’s the link:

https://www.vtbar.org/UserFiles/files/LEGISLATIVE%20BILLWATCH/Bill%20Watch.pdf

Book mark that page so you can return to either read a bill to check its current status.

Thanks for reading.

 

Friday, January 25, 2013

A couple of quick things this Friday afternoon. First, Lisa Maxfield here at the VBA has added a Bill Watch link on the VBA homepage. If you scroll to the bottom and select the second bullet under Explore you’ll see a spreadsheet of those bills that I am following.

Earlier today the Speaker of the House appointed the House’s four members of the Judicial Retention Committee. They are: Tom Koch, Linda Waite-Simpson; Suzi Wizowaty; and Chip Conquest. All four are members of the House Judiciary Committee.

Have a great weekend and, as always, thanks for reading.

Wednesday January 23, 2013

So, after a week without posting I’m back. Montreal was great as always and we didn’t really miss much under the golden dome when we were away. What is remarkable was that on Friday of last week the House Appropriations Committee voted out H. 47, the budget adjustment bill. It’s a midyear correction to the state’s spending. Fortunately for the judiciary the bill includes $2 million dollars that the judiciary needed. The bill passed the House on second reading yesterday on a voice cote and final action will occur this afternoon. let’s hope the funding for the courts stays in at this level; it’ll really alleviate a number of problems.

Yesterday the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on H.1, a bill that would relieve the superior court clerks from the requirement of maintaining a separate book of judgments. Actually, I never knew that there was such a book. The testimony so far points to the requirement being somewhat redundant and of little value. Kathy Hobart, Clerk of the Lamoille Superior Court, offered that her survey of other clerks showed that they are almost never asked to produce the book. The Committee will return to the bill tomorrow afternoon and, barring any opposition, will likely vote it out and send it to the floor for action.

While that was happening the Senate Judiciary Committee began work on S. 1, a bill that would require a court to consider the approximate financial cost of available sentences prior to its issuing a sentence. More testimony needs to be taken and at this point I’m not certain where the bill may go.

This morning the Senate Judiciary Committee heard from Susan Murray and Mark Langan on S. 31, the bill that would overturn the Billings v Billings case. Susan was pretty clear about her and other family practitioners’ concerns about the case itself. She told the committee that the case created evidence problems, cost problems to the parties, to third parties and to the court itself, and family relationship problems. Mark spoke from the perspective of an estate planner whose clients may want protection from disclosure in some cases. they certainly don’t want to be subpoenaed to court in a divorce action.  The committee seems disposed to move the bill even though there may be some issue with the language about civil and criminal penalties for a party’s acting in bad faith. They will return to S. 31 on Friday, February 1^st in hopes of marking it up and voting it out. If any of you have concerns that this bill “goes too far” please let me know ASAP so I can get you before the committee next Friday. I’ll be cutting this paragraph and sending it out to both the Family Law and Probate and Estate Section list serves.

Finally, on a non legislative front, the VBA Board is looking into developing a protocol for dealing with the “medium” sized case, whether you define that at $50K or $75K or some other number. The Board is setting up a study committee to begin discussing how best to handle these types of cases to move them through the system at an affordable cost and timeline for litigants. Please let me know if you have any input on this topic and/or if you want to be involved in the working group.

As always, thanks for reading.

Friday, January 11, 2013

You have probably already read about the shakeup in committee chairmanships and assignments in the Vermont Senate. Dick Sears will remain as Chair of Judiciary but there are two new members - Joe Benning and Tim Ashe - replacing Diane Snelling and long time member Ann Cummings. In Appropriations, Sally Fox will replace Vince Illuzzi so at least one member of that committee will be a lawyer. The full list of committee memberships can be found in the Journal of the Senate dated January 10.

I sat in on House Judiciary this morning for two sessions. The first was Administrative Judge Amy Davenport briefing the three new members of the committee on the structure of the judicial system. After the committee returned from the floor session the entire committee heard from the Chief Justice, Judge Davenport again, Court Administrator Bob Greemore, and deputy Court Administrator Pat Gabel. All discussed the budget shortfall, the failed case management computer project, laws enacted last year, some issues for committee consideration this year,

Today is a typical opening day for one of the most important committees for our issues. I spend the majority of my time in the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. I will be invited soon to give our overview of what the VBA is, what we advocate for (or against) and how we can work together. Of course I’ll report on that when it happens.

Have a great weekend and thanks for reading.