Insurance & Commerce- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (13)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB551
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB551 J. English TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RESTRICTIVE COVENANT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE TERMINATION OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIVE … | J. English | Sine Die adjournment |
|
HB1924
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1924 Dotson CONCERNING ARKANSAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION; TO REQUI…”
|
CONCERNING ARKANSAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION; TO REQUIRE A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A TWO-YEAR REAL ESTATE … | Dotson | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1027
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1027 Rye TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR ADEQUATET…”
|
TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION REIMBURSEMENT UNTIL AN INSURED'S DAMAGED … | Rye | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1068
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1068 Evans TO REPEAL THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE A COVENANT NOT TO CO…”
|
TO REPEAL THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE AGREEMENT. | Evans | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1103
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…F MEDICAL PROVIDERS. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1103 Sullivan TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS HEALTHCARE TRANSPARENCY INI…”
|
TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS HEALTHCARE TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE ACT OF 2015; AND TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS … | Sullivan | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1410
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1410 Gazaway TO CLARIFY THE OBLIGATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL LANDLORDS…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE OBLIGATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL LANDLORDS AND RESIDENTIAL TENANTS; AND TO REQUIRE MINIMUM HABITABILITY … | Gazaway | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1656
Act 964
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE CHAIR CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1656 D. Ferguson TO AMEND THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY A…”
|
TO AMEND THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY ACT; TO PROHIBIT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR MEDICATION-ASSISTED TREATMENT; AND … | D. Ferguson | Notification that HB1656 is now Act 964 |
|
HB1704
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ECLARE AN EMERGENCY. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1704 Gazaway TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS STATE CONSUMER JUSTICE EN…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS STATE CONSUMER JUSTICE ENFORCEMENT ACT; AND TO REGULATE STANDARD-FORM CONTRACTS. | Gazaway | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
SB642
Act 940
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB642 B. Davis TO MODIFY THE TIME FOR RECOUPMENT OF AUDITS OF MED…”
|
TO MODIFY THE TIME FOR RECOUPMENT OF AUDITS OF MEDICAL PROVIDERS. | B. Davis | Notification that SB642 is now Act 940 |
|
HB1271
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ng areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. VEHICLE IS REPAIRED. HB1271 Rushing TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE APPROVAL OF A REAL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE APPROVAL OF A REAL ESTATE LICENSING COURSE BY THE … | Rushing | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1273
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TE LICENSING COURSE BY THE ARKANSAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION. HB1273 Pilkington TO REQUIRE THE STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LIFE AND…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE BOARD TO REVIEW THE … | Pilkington | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1462
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…REVIEW THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF RIDESHARING APPLICATIONS. HB1462 Gazaway CONCERNING DAMAGES IN A CIVIL ACTION INVOLVING A DE…”
|
CONCERNING DAMAGES IN A CIVIL ACTION INVOLVING A DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICE. | Gazaway | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1510
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1510 Lowery TO ESTABLISH THE "ANY WILLING PARTNER LAW".”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE "ANY WILLING PARTNER LAW". | Lowery | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 9, 2026
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
0:00
I'll tell you what, while we have one more coming in, Deborah, would you, Representative Ferguson,
Michael Hall
Unverified
0:12
I understand you have a concur. And this is HB
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
0:16
1656. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman, thank you, committee. This is a, this bill, if you'll remember, was to remove the prior authorization of medically assisted treatment for opioid addiction. And you may remember Medicaid had some concerns when I ran the bill here.
And we amended it on the Senate end to please them. We, they were concerned about their rebates and their formulary. So we removed, we allowed the continuation of the prior authorization on the injectables because they're pretty expensive. And we gave them until January of 2020 to work through some other problems with removing the prior authorization and we made sure that the film buprenorphine is on the, buprenorphine is on the lowest tier because that's their preferred drug on the rebate formulary.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:08
So it's kind of a big change, but is everybody good?
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
1:11
Yeah, Medicaid's good with it now. That was my main concern. I didn't want to do anything to adversely affect their
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:18
formulary rebate. Any questions, colleagues? Anyone here to speak for or against? Well, it's the pleasure of the committee. We have a due pass. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, committee. Thank you, Representative Perkinson. All right. We have 1704.
Okay. 1510. 1410. All right. S.B.
Michael Hall
Unverified
1:50
551, Representative Kapp, this is S.B. 551, if you want to pull it up on
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
2:01
your tablets. Thank you, Madam Chair. May I have
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
2:06
permission for Grant Cox, Michael Hall, and Dennis Wilkins to join me at the end of the table?
Michael Hall
Unverified
2:14
Of course. Thank you. Please state your names and who you're
with, for the record. My name is Michael Hall. I'm with the North Pulaski Baptist Association. Grant Cox, Qualabomb Grooms, Toll & Borough, or
Speaker 20
2:43
Qualabomb Grooms & Toll. Dennis Wilkins with North Pulaski Baptist Association.
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
2:47
Welcome to Insurance & Commerce. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 551 is an act to amend the law concerning restrictive covenants to authorize the termination of certain restrictive covenants and for other purposes. This legislation does benefit the North Pulaski Baptist Association and in regards to the contents of the bill and why we were asking to do this from a policy standpoint, I'm going to let Mr. Cox go into those details. Representative, are
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:14
there any amendments with this bill that we need to hear first?
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
3:19
We ran the amendment yesterday on the
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:24
floor. All right, on the floor. Okay. So we don't need to concur or anything? It's already on the books? It's engrossed? All right,
Speaker 27
3:36
I'm sorry. Please proceed. Thank you. Members of the committee, sort of the impetus of this proposed legislation arose with regards to property owned in North Little Rock by the North Pulaski Baptist Association. Uh, the property is located on North Hills Boulevard, uh, in the area commonly
known as Lakewood. And essentially, uh, what it has is, uh, there is a restrictive covenant on the property. It's church property. It had previously been used for congregations, uh, of a church. My understanding and, uh, Mr. Wilkins may be able to clarify this is that it hasn't The previous church moved in 2011, and it has been owned and operated by the North Pulaski Baptist Association.
The structures on the property are older and require a lot of maintenance, and without a congregation to support it, they've become somewhat unwieldy for the Baptist Association to maintain. As such, they put the property on the market. initially they tried to sell it to and market it to other churches in order to utilize for church purposes unfortunately because of the age of the structures the size of the building and everything else they haven't been able
to for a number of years to sell it to any other congregations or churches in the area and eventually a prospective purchaser approached them for a you know utilizing the property for a different use, for a commercial use, in this case, an indoor storage facility. They got a purchase agreement underway, got it rezoned in the city of Little Rock to allow for this, and then discovered the restrictive covenant on the property that basically restricts the property to church purposes,
and if not church purposes, then single-family residential. This particular property abuts commercial development in North Little Rock. In fact, directly to the north is McCain Boulevard, which I think most people know is generally commercial. So after finding that restrictive covenant, that's when they called me to look at the title. I researched the title, found out that in this particular development, what occurred when the Matthews Development Company, which is the Metropolitan Trust Company, developed Lakewood, they filed an original dedication deed covering a portion of Lakewood, and then they would go out, create, find other properties, develop those, and bring those under the purview of the original dedication deed.
Thus, when searching a particular property, there's no way to know exactly how many other properties were actually brought in under that original dedication deed. And everybody under that original dedication deed essentially has the right to enforce the restrictive covenant. After looking at this, there were two ways to go about trying to remove the restrictive covenant per the terms of the document.
One was to amend or terminate that required finding and locating 50% of the owners of the land, all of the area in order to amend and terminate that restrictive covenant. Because we couldn't determine exactly from the documents themselves exactly who were all incorporated in the 1947 dedication deed, that proved somewhat difficult. We also had originally thought that we could just file maybe a declaratory action against the property owner's association that was named in the dedication document.
Unfortunately, the property owner's association that we thought was named in the dedication document actually wasn't the property owner's association. The original property owner's association was a mandatory association that collected dues and fees. The current Property Owners Association is a voluntary association of residents in the area. So we determined that the only way to do this by litigation, by judicial means, would be to file an action, and then you'd have to provide notice to every person who possibly had a right to enforce the restrictive covenant,
which at this point we still don't know exactly how many people would do this. So, therefore, the legislation basically has two essential parts. The first part is that it provides a defense to a burdened property owner, which is the property owner having the restrictive covenant on the property. Uh, that sort of defense says that if it's an older, uh, restrictive covenant, older than 30 years, uh, if it, uh, you know, if there is, uh, not an existing property owners
association, uh, and they, we've gone through and amended that, uh, with the input of a number of, uh, representatives from various proper property owner associations. We said we had defined existence as being, uh, in existence for at least the previous two years, and there are a number of ways that you can prove existence, electing a governing body, doing any activity whatsoever. If you're a nonprofit, registering with the Secretary of State and maintaining good standing with the Secretary of State. We also state that
it has to be not easy to identify the number of property owners that would be in or have the right to enforce the restrictive covenant. And I believe there are a number, a few other requirements that you would have. That first part creates a defense against the enforcement. The real issue being the second part. The second part allows for a declaratory action to be filed
and for you to seek an expedited judicial hearing. If there are over 200 property owners that may have the right to enforce, if you have that, then you would be able to file that, ask for the expedited hearing, and also file, basically serve notice on those property owners by warning order. Uh, in order to do that, you do have to, uh, provide personal notice to the property owners
most likely to be affected, which are those property owners, uh, immediately surrounding the property. That's sort
Speaker 29
10:36
of, I guess, a brief explanation of the bill. That's a
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
10:39
good explanation. Um, colleagues, any questions? Oh, come on. I
know it's early. It's 10, it's not early. No, okay. Are there people signed up to speak against it?
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
10:58
Oh, we have quite a list. Oh, I'll wait then, because I was just curious. I mean, I can ask you. I mean, the concern I've heard is how it would adversely affect
Speaker 27
11:10
the rest of the state, just trying to do this for one property. Sure. And we've worked with a number of developers and property owners associations that the bill was originally filed by Senator English in order to address some of those concerns. One is that as amended, it doesn't affect a lot of larger property developments,
particularly probably those that a lot of people are familiar with, like Hot Springs Village, Bella Vista, Cooper Communities. Anything that has over 7,500 residential or commercial lots doesn't fall under the purview of this statute as proposed. The other idea is that there are a lot of different ways that, I mean, you have to fulfill all of the factors in D1 in order to basically request and go under the statute.
There is an and in there, as I've been informed and had to work with the Bureau on. So you do have to meet all of those factors. I do want to say that one of the things that this does allow is you do have to prove that there's a change in the use surrounding the property so as to basically remove the purpose for the restrictive covenant. And that is actually, that comes from case law that's been long in existence, particularly
the City of Little Rock v. Joyner case. Uh, so essentially what this allows is there's already, uh, you can already file a declaratory action. Uh, this assists, uh, when you don't know exactly who the, uh, property owners who have the right to enforce would be. Uh, and you could actually serve those property owners by warning notice. Uh, so that's, that's essentially, uh, what it allows. But I think that there, as I stated, there are a number of factors in here that would protect existing property owners associations
and protect current, you know, I guess, benefited property owners of restricted covenant, you know, who have the right to enforce restrictive covenants from the application of
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
13:21
this. Yes. Have you tried going the route of getting 50% of the property owners to?
Speaker 27
13:30
At this point, we actually looked at that initially. The problem with that is that, you know, if there was an existing developer
or an existing property owner's association who had the records that of everybody who had the right to enforce and would be included in what the area of the land would be, then you could easily calculate that. Unfortunately, in this situation, we haven't been able to locate anybody who knows exactly what the area and land is. So we couldn't calculate the 50% in order to, you know, go around and collect those. And our concern always would be is that if you spend a lot of money trying to go through
and it would be a very expensive cost for a title company to do that search and trying to do that, you may actually end up, the title company may miss something and you may think that you have 55% of the owners in land when, in fact, you had 48. So that was pretty much our concern. I think it would be something where, and that's one of the reasons that in the provision that we, or in the proposed legislation that we have, it is not readily, you're not readily capable of identifying the landowners who
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
14:49
Yes, let's do it quickly. We have one other bill, and we go in session at 1030. So
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
14:55
we're going to need to tighten this up quickly. Have you had any pushback from
Speaker 27
15:01
residents that they don't want this? I think, I mean, you know, granted, I think that there are some residents here that would actually say that they're probably not for this. So, I mean, we have had that. We've had a number of residents initially, even when we went to, before they realized that this was a restrictive covenant that applied to all of Lakewood,
not just the immediately surrounding property owners. There were a number of property owners who did support this change. And one thing I would say is I think that even prior to us filing an initial declaratory action against the property owners association that we thought was the association listed under the restrictive covenant document, we had met with them. I think that their concern was that if we allowed a declaratory action like this,
that it could invalidate all restrictive covenants. I don't think that that was the purpose. The purpose is to just allow for a hearing, and if we meet the factors noted, then you could remove the restrictive covenant just with regards to this particular property. And it would allow for other property owners similarly situated to do this, but it only allows for an expedited hearing and also for serving by warning order under an action that already is allowed.
It's just you have to, in order to file the action, you kind of have to know who you're
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
16:33
filing the action against. And I would like to add that they've already received permission to have
the property rezoned, but now they're up against the hurdle of having these restrictive covenants in order
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
16:48
to do anything with the property. Okay, seeing no other comments, just as a housekeeping error, we have some people to speak against another bill, House Bill 1924.
That bill has already failed. So if you're here to speak against it, congratulations, you don't need to be here. And then we have some, any other comments from the committee? Any other questions? I'm sorry, Representative Coleman,
Speaker 46
17:12
you had a question. Thank you. You mentioned there that you'd have to, this passes, that you'd have to notify the immediately surrounding residents. So if you have a court action, then the group that lives around that could come and plead their case in court. So
Speaker 47
17:28
actually the people living around it would be able to voice their concern.
Speaker 27
17:32
Absolutely. And in fact, I mean, that's part of the whole warning order structure too, is that by having the warning order and alerting, and with a warning order, of course, you'd be publishing in the paper, people would be notified of the action. And so even people not surrounding the immediate property would be notified and they'd have the right to answer the complaint and argue against. And the other thing that I would point out is that this doesn't automatically invalidate any restrictive covenants. You still have to be able to prove that there's a change
in the circumstances surrounding the property. So there is a factual sort of finding that needs to be made in order to do
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
18:19
that. Okay. Any other questions from the committee? Okay. We have folks who speak for and against, and due to the limit of time, if those speaking for and against would make sure to compress theirs and not repeat what others are going to say.
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
18:39
I have a motion to limit to
Michael Hall
Unverified
18:46
debate to five minutes per
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
18:50
side. Thank you. I will receive that remotion. All right. The first person to speak against. Oh, I'm sorry. Those in favor? Aye. Those opposed?
Speaker 50
19:02
Okay. Let's see. Alinda Gumm. May I force it and allow
Michael Hall
Unverified
19:07
him to speak first? Yes, that's fine. and that would
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
19:12
be Kent please come up
Kent Walker
Unverified
19:16
good morning committee my name is kent walker i'm gonna
Speaker 53
19:41
thank you my name is kent walker i I represent Lakewood Property Owners Association. I'm attorney in North of the Rock with Walker Law Firm.
I represented Lakewood when this lawsuit got initiated roughly two years ago, a little less than that. And so this bill is a way to reform what should be in the courts. And so this committee today is being asked to reform a Pulaski County action that the Pulaski County Court should be utilizing and deciding. The lawsuit was filed. The plaintiffs themselves dismissed this case. One of the reasons was they named the wrong party. So when you're named the wrong party, you don't have a lawsuit. So they should have amended their lawsuit and filed the right party
and had the right action to get a right judgment. Now, whether or not they were going to win or not, that goes to the merits, but we didn't get that far. So as we go through here, the court, let me talk about the legislation just a little bit. They talk about it not being defined. the bill plat of assurance defines the legal bounds and any of you have ever had a title work done when you purchase a home you get restrictions if there is in the particular neighborhood a restriction on trash if there's a plat of bill assurance your title work says that and if you
haven't had that you go the title company they received their title information in 1968 so this wasn't discovered this was around whenever they got the property so they want to change the use the property which lakewood property owners would work with them on that so a little bit of irony here we have a targeted legislation by their own admission this is for one person one lot in one town this is not what the state legislature is for to solve problems of one particular entity which is what's occurring they never discussed this issue with lakewood property owner association
the one group and the one town that it affects there's not been one discussion one phone call and if you want to target someone you think you would work someone we have the last week of the session we have a bill that's before you we have an amendment that was dropped last night I still even know what that says the amendments longer than the original bill so is that the way we're supposed to operate here to target one land one group in one town and have the state legislature solve that problem for for them if the courts which which they said there's case law
on this, that's where it belongs. Let the courts decide it. Let you all decide other and larger issues. Mr. Sullivan, don't you have anything you want
Speaker 55
22:08
to add? Uh, I'm Ken Sullivan. I'm an executive director of Lakewood property owner association. And I can't speak for everybody in our neighborhood, but I don't think there's a problem with what's wanting to be done with the land. And we certainly, uh, our concern is what does it do to other covenants that we might have in place and we do have the identity of the people that would need to be notified as far as
names and addresses and that type of thing so uh and i didn't even know about the legislation until i got a phone call two days ago from someone that isn't even in our district so that's about all i've got thank you just just two things i want to add they
Speaker 53
22:48
maintain on record in their offices who owns the legal plats who owns all the property and all of Lakewood we know this is in North Little Rock so we know if there was a title work to be done it's very limited area and very limited scope a title company could do it is it gonna cost money yes is it gonna cost money to go
out and get signatures of 50% of everyone there yes but that's the way it was written that's what everyone agreed to and now we're trying to back in and change it for just one person and Lakewood property owners is against it it represents roughly 2000 households so if that's what we're looking at targeting one person versus 2000 in a regional issue then I guess that's where we are that's all I have okay members do you have any questions for these
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
23:36
gentlemen all right thank you thank you all right we have three folks signed up to speak for the bill I'm Michael Hall If both of you gentlemen
Michael Hall
Unverified
24:03
could state your name and who you're with. My name is Michael Hall.
I'm working with the North Pulaski Baptist Association on this issue. Just to give a time frame of what the association has been through, back in February of 2017, the association petitioned the city of North Little Rock to allow for a mixed-use commercial use on the property. All the neighbors were notified. They were in favor of it. Some of them spoke at the meetings in favor of it, and it passed unanimously through planning and through city council. When the association collected notarized signatures from 51% of the property owners
in block 60, which is the survey block that this property is located, to have these restrictions removed, they then notified by title companies that the restrictions couldn't be removed because it required 51% of the area in the land dedication from 1947 as you guys can see on your maps the hashed out area is the area in the original dedication part of the problem we understand is that because that dedication is out there we don't know how many developments also referenced
that dedication and brought it in. So at the least, that's it, but we don't know what the maximum is. So then in March of 2017, we began shopping this issue to title companies. We met with Standard Title, Pulaski Title. We spoke personally with the underwriters for Chicago Title and Old Republic. They all agreed that under the current conditions, you had to go out and find those people, uh, standard title and Pulaski count title, both were unable to give an
estimate of cost, uh, or even, uh, how many people could be involved in it. Um, if it were say 3000 people to certify them would cost almost $20,000 just to certify them. Um, we've had some estimates that that number could go as high as 7,000. Um, so, uh, in September of In 2017, we approached the Lakewood Property Owners Association. I was not involved in that, but I understand they met with the leadership and made them aware that they were going to try to find out who to name in a lawsuit.
And that's part of the problem is there is nobody for the association to even name as a defendant to go in front of a judge. So then, and even the abutting property owners, you can't bring suit against them because according to the map, they're not even a party to this themselves. So from January to May of 2018, we went out and we met with Tim Grooms and Grant Cox with Quattlebaum Grooms, Jeff Hansen of Hansen & Hansen, Price Garner with Friday Eldridge Clark, Bill Spivey with Wright Lindsay Jennings,
Bob Harden with Harden & Grace. They all said there is nothing in here that would allow us to get to a judge. Then the question was, well, what would happen if we went ahead because this restriction, nobody's opposed to a redevelopment of the property. So what if we did do it? The way the document's written, it would only take one person in that area to raise claim. And under that, they could require us to remove any improvements, the cost to remove the improvements, legal fees to defend, and they could even claim diminished value on their property on the other side of town
based on these documents. The other thing that was questioned was, well, what if you did it and time passed? Our understanding is that any time, any property owner can bring a claim, regardless of the time frame, because adverse possession does not apply to covenants on a deed, which is another hurdle we've run into. February of this year, we went ahead and we introduced Senate Bill 551, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate floor. When it came to the House, we met some opposition and some concern from the Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association,
Hot Springs Village, Bella Vista, Cherokee Village, Fairfield Bay with Cooper Properties. They all originally thought something could be done. They looked at it. They didn't have any suggestions, and so they began working with us to make some amendments to this bill to protect. They put in a restriction for recreational use to protect golf courses, pools, parks, any type of amenity that a developer would use. They also identified what a property owner's association is and got really deep into that.
And beyond my pay grade, that would be a question for Grant. But the reality of it is that the association has run out of options. The building is more than 70% vacant. It costs almost $40,000 just to maintain the building. That money comes directly out of their budget. um they're they're funded by other churches and this money comes out of their ministry funds that that they're having to use on a building that uh that they can't do anything with and they frankly
don't have the money the uh the last thing everybody talks about is unintended consequences everybody uses that but they all agree this is fairly narrow and nobody can give an example of what one of those consequences might be i can tell you that we should be concerned about the intended consequences of this bill and people who are stuck under these things. Um, if, if there's somebody else out there and they qualify under this, they have the right to use it too. Thank you.
Speaker 9
29:41
Questions from the committee. Representative cloud.
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
29:47
Thank you, madam chair on our map that y'all passed out. Yes, sir. The property that's contiguous with the site, how come that's not included? How come that's not hashed in?
Michael Hall
Unverified
30:00
I have no idea. We had Marlar Engineering prepare that for us based on the 1947 dedication. That's part of the problem, and I think Grant touched on it.
Speaker 69
30:13
Grant may be able to better answer that. Can I
Speaker 27
30:21
address that? Sorry to kind of come up here, but I've spent a lot of time with these documents. The hashtagged area on the map is actually the area described in the 1947 dedication deed. The way that the Matthews Company, the Metropolitan Trust Company, sort of developed Lakewood, and it's a common thing to do with larger developments, is that you have your initial property, And then you'll go out, purchase lands surrounding, and develop those, and then bring those in under the purview.
So the lands that are not hashed are probably brought in under the 47, just like the area that's marked as the site. That was brought in in 1967 by the Bill of Assurance, and it referenced the 1947 dedication deed. and the way that the 47 dedication
Speaker 74
31:09
deed reads in conjunction with the Bill of Assurance. Sir, let's hold on to
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
31:15
this for just a second. I think we've gone past our discussion time and debate time that we've given it.
I think we've given everybody some time to digest this, so let's pull this back. Let's go back to members. members any discussion we could pull the bill sponsor back in representative cap if you could come back to the end of the table
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
32:00
are you asking that I close yes okay members I just want to touch on a few things and if there's something that i leave out and i don't have any knowledge about this lawsuit so i will ask that mr cox address that but the amendment was filed for purposes of getting people on board that had been working on this for a period of time this actual bill was filed on on march the 12th and the amendments that were made were to dissatisfy people that had expressed
concern so i just want you to know that it's not like this was recently filed um again the the amendments for the purpose of putting language in there that gave some of the POA's satisfaction that they had worked with them in regards to those languages. And from a policy standpoint, I mean, you've got an owner here that happens to be the Pulaski County Baptist Association or the North Pulaski Baptist Association that has a large building,
five acres I think is what I've heard and maybe possibly worth two million dollars and they can't do anything with that property as far as selling it because it can no longer be used as a church it's not being used as that right now there are no other churches interested in using it that way and it's not feasible for it to be used as a single family residence or anything of that nature the property has changed surrounding the area and so do we want to help a property owner in this situation that may also affect other properties across the state that are kind
of in a situation where they're in a corner with easements and restrictive covenants that may put them in a position to where they cannot sell their land or use their land. And so here we've got something that's outdated, and that's why we're asking the legislature to review it. And in regards to the lawsuit, I do want Mr. Cox
Speaker 27
34:10
to comment on that. Sure. Obviously, when we looked at a number of ways to look at this, we looked at the
feasibility of amending. There were two methods, either trying to amend or terminate the restrictive covenant by its written terms, or there's always a judicial remedy. When looking at everything, we thought, well, perhaps it's mentioned in the restrictive covenants that there's a property owners association that may or may not have the right to enforce. We could look at that and work and try to file and get a judge in front of a judge in order to hear the matter by filing with
the Property Owners Association. The Property Owners Association filed an answer back that indicated that they weren't the Property Owners Association that was mentioned in the restrictive covenant, which was news to us. And so we realized that we could not then move forward in that manner. So we did dismiss the declaratory action there and began looking to see what other ways were possible in order to get this in front of a judge.
And that's one thing that this does is it still does put this in front of a court to have an order done, especially with regards to the second provisions for the declaratory action. Okay. I think we're at the close for the bill.
Michael Hall
Unverified
35:36
We're closed, and I appreciate all the thoughtful questions. Okay. Members,
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
35:41
do you have any other discussions? What is the will of the body?
Speaker 34
35:59
Okay, we have a motion. All those in favor? All those
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
36:07
against? No. Okay, the chair calls it a no. I'm sorry, Representative Kapp, the bill has failed.
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
36:13
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee, for your time.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
36:16
Okay. Next up on our agenda, we have, I believe, Representative Cloud. Do you have a bill that you're wanting to run?
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
36:33
Joe Cloud, State Rep, District 71. Okay. What's the
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
36:40
bill number? Senate Bill 642. Okay. If y'all could pull up 642. Representative Cloud, due to the shortness of
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
36:48
time, I think you'd better start presenting. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. This is a one-sentence bill, so we have plenty of time. If you look on the very back, well, it's a back on the bill, but it's Section 3, number 2 is the one sentence. A health care provider may submit a corrected claim for up to six months after recoupment for services
that were actually provided but billed in error without the intent to defraud. So the reason for this bill is if a health care provider has billed a service and then the insurer denies that, they have 18 months to deny that and then recoup that payment. But then after that, there's no time for the health care provider to be able to recoup their money.
And so this bill puts that six-month window in there to correct the mistake or to find out what the situation was. Either the patient signed up with an insurance she or he actually didn't have, and they had changed insurances, but the health care provider didn't know that. And so it was billed in error, but the services were actually performed. This just protects the health care provider, allowing them to have the opportunity to refile their claim and get paid.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
38:12
I'm glad to entertain any questions. So basically this just allows the doctor to, if there is a problem, he can correct it
Speaker 80
38:23
before it's seen as fraud. Within six months,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
38:27
yes. Within six months. Members, do you have any
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
38:30
questions? All right. Representative Gray. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm not opposed to this at all. I just have a question. I guess I was thinking that it could already be rebuilt properly. I guess I thought
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
38:41
we could already do this. You can, but the problem arises if, let's
say, at the very end of that 18-month period,
and then the insurance company comes in, recoups their payment, and then that's the first the health care provider knows there's an issue. And then if they don't have that six-month window, the health care insurer can say, Well, your time's up, it's already passed, or secondary insurance
Speaker 84
39:07
issues. Okay, thank you. Okay, Representative
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
39:11
Ferguson. I assume this only applies to Arkansas insurance products, not ERISA or Medicare. Correct.
Speaker 34
39:17
Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. What is the will
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
39:27
of the body? Wait, wait, wait. Anybody in the audience to speak for or against? Sorry. Okay. And what is the will of the body? Motion to pass on the floor. Those in favor? Aye. That sounds pretty good. Any opposed? I don't even hear that out there anywhere.
So congratulations, Representative Cloud. Your bill is passed. Does anybody else have anything they wish to bring before insurance and commerce today? Speak now and forever hold your peace. Colleagues.
Agenda
TO OFFER TESTIMONY ON A BILL, PLEASE SIGN IN TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1656 D. Ferguson TO AMEND THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION TRANSPARENCY ACT; TO PROHIBITED
PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR MEDICATION-ASSISTED TREATMENT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1704 Gazaway TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS STATE CONSUMER JUSTICE ENFORCEMENT ACT; AND TO REGULATE STANDARD-FORM CONTRACTS.
HB1510 Lowery TO ESTABLISH THE "ANY WILLING PARTNER LAW".
HB1410 Gazaway TO CLARIFY THE OBLIGATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL LANDLORDS AND RESIDENTIAL TENANTS; AND TO REQUIRE MINIMUM HABITABILITY STANDARDS FOR TENANTS OF RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY.
SB551 J. English TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE TERMINATION OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.
HB1924 Dotson CONCERNING ARKANSAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION; TO REQUIRE A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A TWO-YEAR REAL ESTATE LICENSE; TO AMEND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS; AND TO REQUIRE SPECIFIC SUBJECTS OF CONTINUING EDUCATION.
SB642 B. Davis TO MODIFY THE TIME FOR RECOUPMENT OF AUDITS OF MEDICAL PROVIDERS.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1103 Sullivan TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS HEALTHCARE TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE ACT OF 2015; AND TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS HEALTHCARE TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE FUND.
HB1068 Evans TO REPEAL THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETEAGREEMENT.
HB1027 Rye TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR ADEQUATETRANSPORTATION REIMBURSEMENT UNTIL AN INSURED'S DAMAGED MOTOR
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — INSURANCE & COMMERCE- HOUSE, Apr 5, 2019 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Michael Hall
Unverified
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
Representative Sarah Capp
Unverified
Speaker 20
Speaker 27
Speaker 29
Speaker 37
Speaker 46
Speaker 47
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
Speaker 50
Kent Walker
Unverified
Speaker 53
Speaker 55
Speaker 9
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
Speaker 69
Speaker 74
Speaker 34
Speaker 80
Speaker 84