MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
February 11, 1993
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 1:30 p.m., on February 11, 1993, in Room 201 of the Cashman Center, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
Senator R. Hal Smith, Vice Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Ernest E. Adler
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Maddie Fisher, Primary Secretary
Sherry Nesbitt, Committee Secretary
Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Slansky, State of Nevada, Department of Parole and Probation
Chuck Cline, Officer, State of Nevada, Department of Parole and Probation
Michelle Little, Students Against Drunk Driving
Maricris Ramirez, Students Against Drunk Driving
Aimee Jacobi, Students Against Drunk Driving
Jhoana Ramirez, Students Against Drunk Driving
Harry Korie, Member of the Public
Irene Porter, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders
Association
Andrew Urban, City of Henderson
Bill Kibbam, Member of the Public
John Mustagh, Longford Homes
Sandy Heverly, Chairman, Mothers Against Drunk Driving
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. Senator James advised the committee was honored to begin the hearing with testimony from representatives of Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD) from Von Tobel Junior High School. Several weeks before Dana Pridham, their teacher and sponsor of the SADD program at Von Tobel Junior High called Senator James to ask if the students could make a presentation on some issues important to the students and the organization. He further advised the Judiciary Committee would have before it legislation, some of which would address the concerns these students would talk about. None of that legislation was able to be scheduled for hearing in Las Vegas, but Senator James wanted the students to have the opportunity to submit their petition to the committee. He believed the Committee on Transportation would also hear some of the bills they were proposing. Senator James asked Ms. Pridham to organize the group and bring them to this meeting to make their presentation and answer any questions the committee members had. He asked Jhoana Ramirez, Maricris Ramirez, Michelle Little, Bonnie Schmitt and Aimee Jacobi to come forward to the witness table.
Jhoana Ramirez presented oral testimony regarding the SADD proposal before the committee Exhibit C. She was in SADD because she did not like it when people die or are injured by drunk people. She advised she and the other girls present represented the SADD organization at Von Tobel Junior High School and presented their petition, signed by 240 students, to the committee.
Aimee Jacobi testified she was in SADD because hundreds were killed and thousands injured by drunk drivers. They would like to make it unlawful for any person who has a .08 percent or more blood alcohol in his or her blood to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle on a highway or premises to which the public has access. They would like to lower the blood alcohol from .10 to .08.
Bonnie Schmitt testified she was in SADD because she did not think it was fair for drunk drivers to get away with killing innocent people. They wanted to lower the blood alcohol from .10 to .08 so the drunk drivers would have a quicker response system.
Michelle Little testified she was in SADD because at that time in Las Vegas there were a lot of drunk drivers, and therefore the insurance rates were higher. In two years, when she could get a driver's license, she did not want to pay higher insurance rates or get killed by a drunk driver. She explained Number 2 on the petition, which the group's proposal to revoke the license or privilege to drive of, anyone who submits an evidentiary test of the blood or breath pursuant to the implied consent law. This would take away the licenses of all first offenders, even if they were juveniles. At that time juveniles did not get much punishment.
Maricris Ramirez testified she was in SADD because she was sick of watching the news and seeing people either hurt or dead because of drunk drivers. Her group would like to increase the punishment prescribed by hit and run drivers to be at least equal to if not more severe than the punishment prescribed by people who drive under the influence who caused substantially harm to other people. The punishment for hit and run was one to six years and for driving under the influence and causing death or harm to people is one to twenty years. Her group believed the punishment for both crimes should be equal, so the drivers did not leave the scene and sober up.
Senator James thanked the girls, and advised them at least one of the measures, he believed the .08, had already been introduced in the legislature and would be referred to committee and considered. He believed that measure would probably go to the Committee on Transportation. He further advised he would take the written petition submitted by this group, give it to the committee's staff to determine whether or bills could be drafted and introduced through this committee. He believed they pointed out some good things. He asked Jhoana Ramirez how many members were in their SADD group.
Ms. Ramirez answered there were about 5 or 6, and they had meetings Tuesday.
Senator James asked if Mrs. Pridham attended these meetings to help them.
Ms. Ramirez answered yes.
Senator James asked what kind of things they talked about.
Ms. Ramirez answered they made posters for the school and at lunch time they circulated petitions, which was announced in the morning so students could sign the petition, and in answer to Senator James' further question, said they tried to educate the students about drunk driving.
Senator McGinness recalled there are 240 signatures on the petition, and asked the student population of the school.
Ms. Ramirez answered 1,000 students.
Senator McGinness asked how long it took them to get the signatures.
Ms. Ramirez answered about 3 or 4 days.
Senator McGinness asked if she thought they could have received more signatures, or did some people refuse to sign.
Ms. Ramirez replied no one refused to sign. With more time she believed they could have gotten everyone to sign the petition.
Senator McGinness asked Maricris Ramirez how she learned the hit and run driver had a lessor sentence.
Ms. Ramirez replied she found this information through research and from talking with Mrs. Pridham. These were some of the things discussed in their meetings.
Senator Shaffer commended these young ladies for coming forward at such a young age. He stated education was very important as a deterrent to drunk driving situations.
Senator James seconded Senator Shaffer's opinion and further stated he found it really encouraging these students were taking their time to recognize this at such a young age. He believed this was something all young people needed to do. He was very impressed with the number of signatures on the petition presented by the SADD representatives. He advised Sandy Heverly, chairman of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) was in the audience, which he assumed was the mother group to SADD. Ms. Heverly invited Senator James the evening before to something he recalled as one of the most powerfully emotional things he had ever witnessed, a victim impact panel where people who had been convicted of first and second offense DUI were asked to ( and now do voluntarily) confront the people who were the victims of these crimes. They listened to the stories about lost loved ones and personal tragedies, such as the woman who was paralyzed having been hit by a drunken driver. That kind of awareness if, as Ms. Heverly said at that meeting, reached out and affected one person in the room not to engage in that conduct, was worth the effort. Senator James believed what the students were doing was something similar; trying to educate young people and as Jhoana said making posters and rounding up signatures, and believed the students were to be encouraged and commended on this. He thanked those students for making their first appearance before a legislative committee, hoped it was a good experience for them, and that they could go back and tell their friends and the other members of SADD the legislature was there to listen.
Senator James thanked the members of the committee for their patience in listening to the students from SADD, and stated he believed it was a good experience for the young people.
The hearing was opened on Senate Bill 151.
SENATE BILL 151: Allows offender to be returned to custody of department of prisons pending completion of inquiry concerning alleged violation of terms or conditions of his residential confinement. (BDR 16-918)
Senator James reviewed the substance of S.B. 151.
John Slansky representing the State of Nevada Department of Parole and Probation presented oral testimony, advising the department presented this bill draft request on the lst of May, 1992, largely to clear up potential confusion and is basically a technical matter. The bill came up as a result of the residential confinement program for DUI offenders which came into effect as a result of A.B. 305 in the 1991 legislative session. Questions arose as to the Parole and Probation department's authority to place offenders in county jails if, in fact, they violated conditions of their residential confinement. The concern was under what status the department would book those people. They could not be booked as parole violators; they were not on parole, but in fact still prisoners. The department spoke with the Attorney General's staff who advised the department could put those people in county jails, and this was perfectly legal. However, with the crowding occurring in county jails, the department would like the authority in the statute to place those people back into the custody of the Department of Prisons pending a preliminary inquiry, a probably cause hearing, to determine they might have violated the conditions of their residential confinement. If they had, they would remain in the prison; if they had not they would again be released. This would clear up Parole and Probation's authority to place them there and help in the county jails.
Senator James asked for confirmation those prisoners were currently in the jails and Parole and Probation wanted to be able to put them in prison.
Mr. Slansky confirmed this was the case, and introduced Mr. Charles Cline, the District Administrator for the Department of Parole and Probation in Las Vegas, Nevada. Mr. Slansky advised Mr. Cline was available to answer any questions regarding what was happening in the detention center.
Mr. Cline stated his department had been working as best they could with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the detention center to keep his department's numbers of inmates, both parolees and probationers down in that facility. This bill would help in that endeavor; to keep their people in the prison system as opposed to the jails.
Senator McGinness asked if this truly would result in prisoners not spending any more time in a county jail.
Mr. Cline stated under S.B. 151 there would be no custody difference, but the prisoner would spend less time in the county jail and more time in the prison. It would help the county as to their inmate population.
Senator James asked for confirmation regarding the bill saying, "Before an offender may be returned to the custody of the department of prisons" which was how the language used to be. The prisoner was in custody of some other group, which was Mr. Cline's facility.
Mr. Slansky affirmed this was correct.
Senator James further confirmed the situation was not regarding confining someone we did not confine previously prior to an evidentiary hearing of some kind.
Mr. Slansky affirmed this, too, was correct.
Senator James noted the bill had a fiscal impact, a copy of which the committee did not have. He imagined that was because there was an effect on the number of people incarcerated in the Department of Prisons as well as the local facilities.
Mr. Slansky advised they were referring to very short time frames in regard to this bill. Sometimes the hearings were conducted the same day three days at most, after an incident happened. The only delay would be getting evidence for consideration by the hearing officer or locating a witness. Usually in the cases of his involvement, the hearing took no more than an hour, and the law required they provide the prisoner with twenty-four hours notice.
Mr. Cline stated he knew of none taking more than three days.
Senator Adler asked if the inmates on the 305 Program were still within the custody of the Department of Prisons when they are on the streets.
Mr. Slansky stated this was correct.
Senator Adler asked regarding paragraph 2 of the bill which stated, "An offender may be returned to the custody of the department of prisons . . ." they were already in the legal custody of the department, and should not the wording be "physical custody".
Mr. Slansky agreed what they meant was physical custody.
Senator Adler affirmed Senator James' question if that change should have been made when the 305 Program, and added the prisoner was never out of the legal custody of the Department of Prisons.
Senator James asked Mr. Neilander to research that issue to determine whether a change should be made from legal to physical.
Mr. Slansky advised what Senator Adler said was correct. Having worked in the program for so long Mr. Slansky assumed physical custody, but perhaps it should say this.
Senator McGinness, reading from the bill, " . . .recommendations regarding the disposition of the custody of the offender . . ." asked if it was possible to say what percentage of the people could be returned to the 305 Program or was there ever a situation where they were returned.
Mr. Slansky answered yes. The 305 Program was primarily for the alcohol offender and often in that program his department got people who had records of alcohol abuse which were astonishing. His department had seen instances in which people had been out on residential confinement and were caught having a beer. The department did not grab them and automatically throw them back into prison. That would be discretionary, and he believed a person had to have some flexibility in a program such as the 305. He could not recall the exact number but guessed at least three were not sent back to the physical custody of the Department of Prisons.
Mr. Cline agreed there had been 3 with which the Department of Parole and Probation had used their discretion.
Senator McGinness assumed the language in S.B. 151 ". . .has committed acts that would constitute such an escape . . ."would give Parole and Probation enough latitude to make that determination.
Mr. Slansky agreed this was correct.
Senator Adler advised in a meeting in Carson City he talked to some of Mr. Slansky's staff regarding the 305 Program. Those staff people said it would depend upon how they discovered the event. There was one instance in which someone had a crisis, actually consumed alcohol
and contacted Parole and Probation to informed them prior to the department's discovery. Senator Adler believed that person's parole was not revoked because the individual had advised the parole officer as soon as the incident happened.
Mr. Slansky recalled this incident and that they did not revoke the individual's parole.
Mr. Slansky advised he felt having the young people from the junior high school testify was a class act on the part of the committee.
Sandy Heverly representing Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) gave oral testimony. She advised MADD had serious concern regarding the 305 Program. She acknowledged that was not the time to go into that but wanted to state her organization strongly believed when those people violated any conditions of the 305 Program, whether it be one beer, one shot or one glass of wine, that should be taken into very serious consideration and the person should be sent back to prison. That was part of the condition. They were in prison for committing a crime involving alcohol or other drugs, and when they violated that they should be sent back. A couple of weeks previous Ms. Heverly had an opportunity to meet with some people working at the Department of Parole and Probation, who advised currently in Clark County there were 81 people who had been brought back to Clark County through the 305 Program, eight of whom had been sent back. Seven of them were in violation of the alcohol and one in violation of using drugs. She wanted the committee to have that information for the record.
Senator Adler said he believed what the department was referring to was other violations such as not being at their work place when they should and similar situations to this. There were other technical violations besides the alcohol violation.
Ms. Heverly understood this and knew there would be further testimony on this issue. She simply thought it was important to point out no matter what the conditions were, when they were violated the person had broken the trust.
Senator Adler asked if she believed if, for example, being half an hour late for work would cause an automatic revocation.
Ms. Heverly replied if there was not a substantial and valid reason for them being late for work, absolutely.
Senator Adler further commented technically under Mr. Slansky's program if the person driving the parolee to work had a flat tire and the parolee was half an hour late, they would have violated the terms of parole.
Ms. Heverly agreed there were many technical violations possible. She stated MADD's main concern was violation of the stipulation of using alcohol or other drugs during that time.
Senator James closed the hearing on S.B. 151.
* * * * *
Hearing was opened on S.B. 152.
SENATE BILL 152: Requires owner to deliver copy of recorded notice of completion of any person who previously gave notice of materials supplied or work or services performed. (BDR 9-178)
Senator James explained for those not present at the initial meeting of the committee in Las Vegas, he was able to arrange for the committee to meet in Las Vegas by having the other chairmen be kind enough to juggle their schedules to adjourn so the members of the Judiciary Committee who serve on Commerce and Labor and Natural Resources could attend Judiciary Committee hearings. Senator Jacobsen had to remain in Carson City as he was on the Senate Finance Committee. Testimony would be heard on bills in Las Vegas, in addition to other hearings such as the presentation by SADD. The bills would not be voted on until brought up again in Carson City where hearings would be re-opened, and any further testimony taken.
Senator James explained S.B. 152 is a bill proposed by Senator Callister. He asked proponents of the bill to testify. There being none, he explained the bill, being a co-sponsor. His understanding was the trigger time for validity of many liens on a construction project was the date of notice of completion. Under current law the owner could record notice of completion of the project either 15 days after actual completion of any work of improvement on the property, or 45 days after a cessation of labor on the project. That was a significant time, as from that point forward all lien filings and suits thereon were subject to time limitations. People were either thereby included or excluded from a valid lien against the property for payment of materials and labor rendered to the property. S.B. 152 concerned to whom the owner of the property must give notice of completion. The law used to read "Upon recording the notice pursuant to this section, the owner shall immediately deliver a copy of the notice, either: . . . in person or by certified mail, to any general contractor with whom the owner contracted for the work of improvement." S.B. 152 would add that not only would they give notice either in person or by certified mail to the contractor, but also by certified mail to any person " . . .who before the notice was recorded", the notice of completion, " . . .gave notice to the owner, pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 108.245, of materials supplied or work or services performed." NRS 108.245 was a provision by which a laborer or materialman could place the owner on notice of the fact he was contributing those things to the project. As a proponent of the bill, Senator James stated it seemed a good idea to include those people in the notice process.
Senator James further advised this bill would obviously have to be re-heard in Carson City, to give Senator Callister an opportunity to articulate his own reasoning and bring forth the people requesting the bill.
Irene Porter, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association gave oral testimony. She introduced John Murtagh, President of Longford Homes, a small home builder whom S.B. 152 would effect. Ms. Porter thought when this bill was put together it was reviewed from the standpoint of a regular owner/general contractor relationship in a commercial building type of facility. There had probably been some problems with the owner of that building delivering notices and possibly not getting them out to suppliers. In the case of home builders, a major portion of the construction industry in Nevada in the case of townhouses, condominiums or single family homes, the home builder was different in they were the owner and general contractor. It seemed rather simple to send a notice of completion. The reason for recording documents was not only the legality but to establish a centralized place where people from the general public had an opportunity to look at the notice of completion or original lien. Almost all subcontractors and suppliers then, particular in the home building industry, automatically filed that lien at the beginning of the job. It had nothing to do with being late on payments, but was only a method of protecting themselves. In a house building situation, for her group to file a notice of completion with every subcontractor and material supplier would involve approximately 100 notices of completion to be sent for every home. A small builder completing 20 houses per year would be required to send 2,000 notices. For a builder like Lewis Homes of Nevada, on their homes completed in 1992, 90,000 notices of completion would have been required. Ms. Porter did not believe this was the intention of S.B. 152, and that the committee would find the intent different when speaking with Senator Callister. This might be something the committee and the Nevada Home Builders could sit down and work out together. The SNHBA was certainly willing to do so. Again in the case of Lewis Homes, who also did commercial where they were their own owner, their apartments and their homes would probably involve well over 100,000 thousand notices of completion to be sent out by certified mail. She would have no idea how many staff people would be required just to accomplish this. It got very complicated when compounded as is the case in the housing industry.
Mr. Murtagh advised that a as a representative of the owner he would have to sign possibly 20,000 to 30,000 notices per year himself under the proposed law, from the approximately 200 notices he then signed, doing approximately 200 homes per year. He had to sign the notices of completion and be sure they were recorded before the houses closed escrow. This legislation would change that from 200 per year to approximately 20,000 per year, which would be a real hardship. Additional people would have to be hired to get the notices out.
Senator James asked would it not be in the type of projects involving a massive number of units, each of them separate for purposes of a notice of completion and lien on the project. He believed the liens, for a materialman or supplier, went against the lot, which was already subdivided at that point.
Ms. Porter agreed this was true.
Mr. Murtagh added he typically had about 30 subcontractors on a job, each having two or three suppliers. Therefore, he had upwards of 100 pre-liens filed to the owner, per house. For him to answer each of those would be horrendous; he would need to hire two people simply to keep track of the filing.
Senator James asked if it would really be that kind of project where the problem sought to be addressed in the bill would come up. He felt the issue of whether there had been completion, the notice of completion had been properly given and recorded, and whether the time period ran and people received notice would occur in larger projects with people starting at different times, and several hundred different suppliers. He suggested possibly there was way to limit this legislation to that kind of situation.
Mr. Murtagh advised in that case, with most home builders, at least in the Las Vegas area, the owners are also the general contractors, and in that capacity were aware when work stopped, unlike some of the larger projects, where there might be other difficulties of which the general contractor may not be aware.
Ms. Porter stated she had talked with Mr. Dallas Cunrod of the Associated General Contractors, whom she thought would be at that meeting. She advised it was different when the contractors had a different prospective; when the owner and general contractor were two different people, sometimes the contractor felt it important the subcontractors and suppliers got the notice of completion. In her conversation with Mr. Cunrod that morning, he agreed Ms. Porter was right; he and his associates had looked at the lien law before, and sometimes the changes made to help them create a disaster on the other side of the construction industry. Speaking for what Mr. Cunrod told her, Ms. Porter knew he was more than willing to work with Senator Callister and the committee to attempt to address whatever the issue was to even help them, were the owner and general contractors different.
Senator James thanked Ms. Porter for her comments and said they were well taken. He believed that situation probably was not considered, and possibly the committee could draft something different. Possibly it could be as easy as having it address the situation where the owner and builder are different or limiting it to the type of project not involving multiple units or subdivision. He assured Ms. Porter and the concerned committee members he would pass the information along to Senator Callister. Since it was evident to him there needed to be some re-targeting of the bill, he asked Senators Adler and McGinness to serve as a sub-committee to consult with Senator Callister, and bring back to the committee a more workable proposal, and gave the bill to Senator Adler.
Andrew Urban, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Henderson presented oral testimony. He stated although generally his office would not appear under NRS 108, his city did use the notice of completion process for public work projects in order to trigger the notice of claims which might come in on bonded projects. The way this statute is set up they are in the same situation. They were currently completing a major project having about 200 notices of material supply and if the provisions suggested in S.B. 152 were in effect, would have to hire an additional clerk of the works to track that and send out the mailing. This would be an impact on them from an expense standpoint. If the original purpose for generating the bill was to facilitate or make it easier for a supplier to know the notice of completion had been recorded, they would publish in the legal notices that they have filed the notice of completion. Possibly that would be a solution. Contractors were always checking the legal notices and that was a lot less expensive to do a publication if someone had 200 houses to do, as opposed to hundreds of people.
Senator James believed there were particular situations which Senator Callister would be able to eliminate, a fact situation he wished to address. The sub-committee would make their best effort to determine the intent of the bill.
Bill Casam offered testimony on S.B. 152. Mr. Casam gave his address as 9324 Cascade Hills Drive, Sun City, Las Vegas, Nevada, and advised the committee he represented himself as a resident of Sun City, not opposing S.B. 152, but requesting a few amendments representing individual homeowners like himself. His first suggestion was a proposed amendment requiring whoever did the supplying of materials and/or labor provide the homeowner with a packet including the notice of completion. S.B. 152 stated the notice need not be notarized, so Mr. Casam suggested making it easier on the homeowner, requiring only completion and mailing of the notice. His next suggestion related to his personal experience. He moved into Sun City in January of 1992, having completed all architectural work outside including landscaping, walls, sidewalks; everything Del Webb had completed. He was not in any way faulting Del Webb who he considered an excellent builder who did everything what they represented to prospective homeowners as himself. Nevada Outdoor Design, the landscaper for Mr. Casam's home, was licensed and bonded, and did all work as requested. Mr. Casam paid the company in full. One of Nevada Outdoor Design's checks to Abco Ready Mix in the approximate amount of $300 bounced. They came after the Casams for the money. The Casams advised them he had paid, and showed the canceled checks. Abco insisted the Casams must pay, and put a lien against his house. In the lien, the date of concrete delivery was January 20, 1992, different from the actual date which was December 28, 1991. The Casams went to small claims court. The original amount was only $269, and Mr. Casam could have paid it out of his pocket, but he knew something was wrong. By the time the case was heard in court, Mr. Casam was told he might have to pay over $400 and possibly $900 in payment of the bill. When he appeared before the judge, Abco Ready Mix had a stack of complaints against people such as him. Mr. Casam had called Abco, telling them the date was wrong, and was told he had to pay it anyway. In court, he plead not guilty because the delivery date was wrong, and showed the judge the receipt of the actual delivery date. The judge told Mr. Casam he would dispose of the case, to which Mr. Casam replied they could not just throw it out, the company had lied, coming in with an altered document, of which they were aware due to Mr. Casam's phone call. The judge dismissed the case. Mr. Casam then decided to come before the committee. There are approximately 3,000 families in Sun City, only one of the 11 villages of Summerlin, a new community of thousands of not just registered voters, but people such as himself who might not have known enough to check the library and find out there was a 90-day statute of limitations on the lien. Mr. Casam referred NRS 108.226, which stated 90 days regardless of what the customer's current bill read. He asked the committee for an amendment to S.B. 152 to punish people like Abco for filing fraudulent claims, by making a penalty three times the damages which the company had already collected, and make the penalty retroactive three years, which would probably include most of the building in Sun City. He did not want to collect on this and did not want to be involved, but was attempting to help other senior citizens in his residential area.
Senator Adler, wishing to affirm the chain of events, asked Mr. Casam
if the landscape contractor actually paid the concrete people, for which they tried to double collect.
Mr. Casam stated this was not the case. The check bounced.
Senator Adler asked if the check was presented again for payment.
Mr. Casam replied it was, and still bounced, for which Abco company blamed him. Mr. Casam told Abco that was not his responsibility. Abco advised Mr. Casam he would have to pay them and then pursue the landscaper. Immediately after this the landscape contractor filed bankruptcy, at which time there were many instances in which this contractor had not paid the suppliers. Mr. Casam was one of many who was defrauded, but he was not fighting the landscape contractor. He was fighting someone coming into a court with a fraudulent document.
Senator Adler asked if Mr. Casam believed Abco altered the other documents.
Mr. Casam said regardless of whether they did not, he had already alerted Abco the date of delivery on claim was a month different from delivery. Abco replied it did not make a difference, Mr. Casam still owed the money.
Senator James thanked Mr. Casam for bringing this to the attention of the committee. He related occasions in his law practice where he had seen instances of misuse of lien statutes by unscrupulous persons. There exist common law claims for slander of title and so forth. His understanding was Mr. Casam was looking for something to go beyond those remedies. He advised he would ask staff to review the law to determine whether this type of remedy existed, and if not whether it could be augmented in some way.
Mr. Casam provided Senator James with a copy of the documents concerning his case (Exhibit D). He finalized his testimony by saying he was attempting to help the seniors so they would not have to hire a lawyer to get a notice of completion done.
Senator James did not believe this would become part off S.B. 152. What was needed to rectify situations such as the one described by Mr. Casam was a punitive measure for people who wrongly utilized the lien statutes, which he will have Mr. Neilander review, keeping in mind the view in which protection of the senior citizens and other groups is the goal. This would be consumer protection legislation which the committee could possaibly consider separately. The other issue raised by Mr. Casam, making a notice of completion form readily available to people who might be a homeowner, but a novice, not involved in the contracting profession, will also be looked into by Mr. Neilander.
The hearing on S.B. 152 was closed.
* * * * *
The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Nesbitt
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Judiciary
February 11, 1993
Page 1
Senate Committee on Judiciary
February 11, 1993
Page 1