Insurance & Commerce- House

Times things happen where we have to wait for an amendment or whatever but we will. I have some flexibility we will not be taking up today house bill fourteen oh four represented Bentley is asked that we pass over that first bill on the agenda is house bill seventeen ninety eight by representative Clowney. Representive if you will identify yourself for the record if you have any witness that you wanted to table with you have them identify themselves as well as well thank you Mr chair good morning Committee Nicole Clowney representative district eighty six if I could have professor Lynn foster join me please. Sure. Thank you I'm Lynn foster retired law professor at UA little rock president of the nonprofit for Kansans for stronger communities okay thank you representative you're recognized to present your bill thank you good morning committee it's strange and nice to be on the side of the table this morning House bill seventeen ninety eight six to remedy something that makes arcs Arkansas exceptional in a way that I think none of us should be proud of Arkansas is the only state in the country where at not being able to pay rent can lead to criminal charges this bill aims to change that as you can see all it does is repeal that section of the criminal code that would lead to those charges before going to more detail I want to be very clear that this bill in no way impacts any objection process done through civil procedure this bill would not impact the vast majority of addiction proceedings in Arkansas only those brought under the criminal code failure to vacate statute unlawful detainer and other civil action actions would remain completely untouched. So before I go into a little bit more detail about why we need this I just wanna explain what the statute that I'm seeking to repeal does. This bill would repeal a relatively rarely used section of Arkansas's criminal code that works this way. The statute says that if rent is not paid when it's due the rest of the tenants lease term is forfeited so in other words if a tenant is one day late with their rent the law ends the lease term rate than. Then in a few counties where this is still used the landlord can give the tenant attendee notice to vacate and that's not attending notice to pay or vacate that's just ten days that the tenant has after being one day to get out of the apartment or a rental property. under this statute the landlord can just provide a notice to vacate with no chance again no chance for the tenant to make up for the late payment at the end of those ten days of the tenant has not left the tenant can then be charged with a criminal offense the landlord can file an affidavit with the prosecutor the tenant or receive a citation or criminal summons to the arrangement for the tenant will make a plea if the tenant fails to appear he or she can be arrested or jailed. No other state has a law like this it's important to note that our laws as many of you know or split into two kinds civil and criminal rate each court has a different set of rules and procedures on the civil side the procedure is a trial typically preceded by hearing a judgment a judgment which is enforced civilly. In the eviction context that means that if the landlord sue the tenant for staying in a rental unit without having paid rent this is known as unlawful detainer. Even if the tenant doesn't appear for the hearing or trial and doesn't pay any judgment that tenant can be held liable for overdue rent and any other damages he or she can be forced to leave the premises but they can't be arrested or jailed however if a landlord files on the criminal side again something that is only permissible in Arkansas what follows is a citation or arrest a plea and arraignment. If a defendant if the defendant tenant doesn't appear in the arrangement a failure to appear warrant is issued and here's why that matters unlike with civil of action proceedings the tenants driver's license may be suspended for failing to appear guilty tenant can be fined up to twenty five dollars a day failure to pay a fine is that an additional crime so this procedure found only in Arkansas can just lead to getting ensnared in the criminal justice system in a way that civil actions simply do not. As analogy imagine that you were to fall behind on say your mortgage payments right in your for close against and given ten days to leave imagine that if you worked on in ten days you be arraigned in criminal court and possibly subjected to criminal fines and imagine that if you miss the arrangement a warrant would immediately be issued for your arrest that sounds really odd and wrong to all of us and that's because we haven't criminalized the mortgage foreclosure process but in Arkansas we have criminalized being behind on rent. we're the only state again to have done so which is problematic a lease is simply a contract between two parties and failure to pay rent is a breach of contract there is no other state in the country the criminalizes this type of breach of contract and in fact I don't think there's any other place in Arkansas law that criminalizes any other breach of contract scenario the criminal action statute again doesn't touch anything dealing with evictions on the civil side does eviction procedures that the vast majority of landlords use today would be completely untouched by passing this bill. This statute is rarely used in our state but it's used enough that it is causing real unjust harm. And it's bringing us. Really negative national attention which is how I learned about this issue to stand on our state criminal code it's time to repeal it and depend as every other state in the country does on civil law to handle our states of actions proceed addiction proceedings since I filed this bill on March eighteenth I've gotten a lot of support including professor foster in their organization or cantons for stronger communities as well as Americans for prosperity and though it's my understanding that realtors and their lobbyists have been reaching out to committee members in opposition I do think it's important to note that I have not heard from them so I'm interested to hear what they have to say today professor foster has been up for the last few years following addictions in our state and seeing the real ramifications they have an Arkansas families and so I'd like her to just sort of fill in a little bit of the detail in terms of what's actually happening on the ground with the statute thanks. Thank you representative Clowney and thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning As I'd like to emphasize what representative cloning has said about the number of courts that hear these cases most to district courts no longer hear these cases we don't know exactly how many because most district courts don't report on court connect which is the statewide database of court filings and docket records but we estimate that it's approximately twenty percent if that of district courts that hear these It Arkansas chords did here over three hundred and fifty failure to vacate cases in twenty twenty out of probably more than thirty five hundred total eviction cases most of the cases seem to be heard by district courts in garland and Miller counties but they but very small numbers of them have been heard in at least eight other counties garlanded Miller county seem to use this eviction procedure as the procedure of choice even though there is a civil eviction procedure available that of unlawful detainer and so most likely your district will not be affected by enactment of this bill at all. I'd like to just also say a few words about the criminal nature of this offense and why that's an important thing. commission of a crime results in different consequences than commission of a civil wrong. In general society morally condemns the criminal more strongly than it does the civil wrong doer and many tenants who have actually been arrested under the statute talk about the shame that they feel as they are arrested as they are handcuffed and led to their car wondering what's going to happen with their children. Making the eviction procedure a criminal process is like trying to hammer a round peg into a square hole instead of the landlord being the plaintiff the landlord is the victim. The landlord has no need of an attorney taxpayers subsidize the landlord so that he need not pay court costs or attorney's fees. And I would just like to emphasize that in no other type of civil dispute does our law give businesses the special and unique privilege of having debts that they claim is due and forced at the expense of taxpayers through the criminal justice system is the only example. A criminal court has no jurisdiction to actually effect the tenant so instead some of them issued no contact orders forbidding attendant from returning to the rental unit. But by definition a no contact order is an order prohibiting a defendant from contacting a person or from being within a certain distance of that person's home or place of employment. This use of no contact orders twists and distorts the definition to use it to prohibit a tenant from returning to rental premises. And violation of a no contact order is also a crime. Tenants can run afoul of other criminal statutes as well many tenants don't realize that if they fail to appear at the plea and arraignment they are then going to be charged with failure to appear which is another criminal offense failure to pay is also a criminal offense that can come into play violation of the no contact order is yet another offense that can come into play and they sometimes do. You may hear testimony today that this is just like a parking ticket this this is a little bit misleading it's true that like a parking ticket this is a criminal offense it's not a misdemeanor the statute itself does not mention jail time. But it's still a criminal offense. You can pay a parking ticket by mail you can't do that with this charge you can lose your home the place where you're living if you're on probation or parole failure to appear will suffice to revoke that. Or even just being charged with failure to vacate. Imagine. Breaching an unemployment contract and being prosecuted for robbing your employment your employer of his services that's what we're doing with this statute again the only one of its kind. And it's a difference between losing in court and actually being found guilty and criminalized in court. Thank you. To open for questions and I'm happy to take any questions okay members are there any questions representive board. So you had mentioned you know that Rennell in a rental property is the only place where we might you know criminalize if you will I guess the other example that was brought to me would be like rental cars like if I didn't continue to pay my rent so how would you compare the two in that scenario thank you. Hi I'm I'm familiar with and statutes regarding rental cars but if we take the example of purchasing a car and not making the payments Typically at a repossession will be. Made if the car isn't available for some reason you're still not going to be criminally charged it's going to be a civil charge that's brought against you. Sir follow representive your question any other skews me any other questions representive. Right ray. Thank you Mr chairman represent clinic is a couple of times in your presentation you referenced. The criminalizing not being able to pay rent use that phrase a couple times but reading the statute it it seems clear to me that is not criminalizing the failure to pay it's criminalizing the failure to vacate would you agree that that's an important distinction. Yes you are not being you're not having criminal charges brought against you because the code says the words you are not able to pay I do think that when you are one day late with your rent because you were not able to pay it and that triggers a series of events that lead to criminal charges that it is not too far abridge to classify it that way but yes it is the distinction in the criminal charges are brought for failure to vacate which is that something that can be the process can be kicked off as quickly as a one day pass rent. I also respond to that. When you look at the statute as a whole it's clear that even though the statute does say that failure to vacate is the crime itself it's it's clear that the statute is used by landlords to basically evicted tenants landlords don't charge their tenants with failure to vacate and then allow them to stay on the premises typically unless the Senate can come up with rent and make that payment that doesn't happen most of the time it's the procedures follow along the same track a civil eviction procedures do so even though the statute does use different wording it's clear that that is the process that's intended by the statute to force the tenant out of the premises and if they don't leave to make it a crime to criminalize them for a follow up Mr yes so. Help me understand your report on this because if if you've been given a notice to vacate and you refused to vacate your keeping possession of someone else's property. Unlawfully and and the keeping of that property. Has a monetary results in a monetary loss to that to the to the person who owns the property thank you you just don't have an unfettered right to live in someone else's property. Indefinitely I mean at what help me understand what why that's okay. Well it's not okay but we have civil statutes that take care of that problem basically what you're talking about is the breach of a contract and our state has made the decision to make this particular breach of a contract and only in this circumstance a crime and that that's a real out liar It's illegal for landlords to use self help to evict tenants but we haven't made that a crime. Okay and in that instance you have a landlord who in some cases it's actually illegally depriving the tenant of their place to live but our legislature hasn't chosen fit to criminalize that. Okay. We have several into Q. Libby I want to ask a couple questions for you based on what you just said that the it is illegal for the landlord to self help representive cloudy representative you said to us that in the civil process the landlord has recourse to be able to of it hal if they cannot self help how can they actually evict how can they basically repossess their property I mean if someone breaches a contract on buying a car the the dealership can repossess the car how did they go about re possessing their property of either the house or the apartment if if they cannot do self help. Well I guess I would say first I would say representative Lowery that this bill isn't about the ability to do self help or not so I'm not exactly sure the answer to that question but I can tell you that you know under civil law you go when you get. The civil order right the unlawful detainer in I understand that process I'm just talking about how do they if they do if someone refuses to vacate. Then what recourse does that landlord have other than being able to use the courts the district courts sure. the the procedure for removing attended from the premises is well established at civil law you file a civil suit in civil court and the court will issue a writ of possession is what it's called and that authorizes the sheriff to come and physically dispossessed the tenant it is civil proceeding the sheriff can and can participate in the eviction can and does every day absolutely all right thank you for that clarification representative Lundstrum you're recognized within representive Penzo. Thank you I'm a little confused here this is a tool in the toolbox that landlords use for example I've I've just evicted a key tenet myself and they owe me three thousand five hundred dollars in damages that stealing so we're saying stealing is not a criminal offense. It's the breach of a contract correct and so if you were in an employment contract with someone and you had promised to work for them and you then breach that contract. Would you say that if the employers to do that. They were stealing you for theft of the services that you had promised under the contract and were no longer giving property ma'am they are in a property that they haven't paid rent for for now for two months and they know the rent is due. And they have the ability to pay they've chosen not to. Well the law in all other states regards that simply as a breach of contract and so the landlord has a right to sue for damages and unpaid rent I I don't know if you're familiar with the United States District Court but they've also found that this is a perfectly useful tool in Allen versus Gibson and this is but just recently I think in twenty twenty a great court case that's come out found that this is a perfectly acceptable to all so I don't know why we need this. I I believe that in that case Many of the aspects of the case were dismissed because of movements and so that court did not rule squarely on the constitutionality of the statute and what was at issue was its constitutionality it wasn't a case brought in state court to determine the The validity of the case under state law. Announcer just want to say I I have no doubt that this is a useful tool for landlords I wouldn't try to argue that it's not I think that it would be quite useful if any of us who had a grievance could threaten to bring criminal charges against the person who who had wronged S. rate but This is not the way that it has to be done into useful tool it's not a necessary tool and it's a tool that in the process trips up a lot of people I hate representative Lundstrum that there's somebody that owes you that amount of money that have that amount of money that isn't paying it but I also hate the numbers of our Kansans were being tripped up in the criminal process whose futures are really seriously devastatingly being impacted by a criminal charge that takes care of something that could just as well be taking care of in the civil code particularly when every other state has figured out that we don't need the criminal Before criminal ramifications to address the underlying problem. And and I also think that again the example of the mortgage is very analogous here if someone is late on their mortgage payments our law does not regard that is staffed regards it as breach of contract. Representive Penzo you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair did you mention something about jail time. In your discussion hopes that if you fail to appear for a failure to vacate charge you can be arrested or jailed yes okay but you cannot be arrested and jailed for simply failing to make it I'm I'm I think we have somebody that's going to test it is going to speak to that a little bit later but I do not know that we have any current instances the folks that have been jailed just for failing to vacate so it's my understanding spring court said you could be jailed just for simply failing to vacate but I think you can be arrested and jailed for failing to appear for any thing is that correct many could be a traffic citation I know you mentioned that you could be. Rest in jail for failing to appear for a traffic citation to correct. I think so okay thank you sure but just answer that so. The problem here is with the originating charge right none of that gets kicked into place unless you have an originating criminal offense that being failure to vacate here what many tenants understand and in fact many legislators I've talked to about this legislation I'm happy to have been confused for good reason are laws confusing about the fact that these are two separate procedures civil and criminal many tenants and you can imagine these are tenants most of whom cannot pay their rent they're not choosing not to pay their rent that's majority simply cannot pay their rent we're talking about that population that population may not understand all of the ramifications of failing to appear and so I think that it's really important that before we throw people into our criminal justice system we know for sure that they understand that that's what's going on and that we have a really good reason to do it I don't think that this is a really good reason because there's recourse for these landlords simply. Thank you representative Alan you're recognized for a question. You don't have a question I thought so you raise your hand sorry representative. I'm sorry so I thought no no I saw I guess so that I guess but I guess but depth perception about depth perception is often a I'm here to solve the wrong hand representive Hodges I'll take of a compliment of my question is what what type of charters this a misdemeanor or a felony charge so it's neither it's actually it says the statue that it's a misdemeanor but it's not in fact a misdemeanor because misdemeanor because the only penalty for the failure to vacate itself is a fine so it's what we call a just a criminal offense in criminal violation thank you that is the one one day could could could lead to criminal charges yes. Thank you. Let me follow up on one one day okay is there are there not requirements even under the criminal statute for proper notice to evict I mean it would take more than one day of them not not vacating correct I mean I I know that that's a real nice little headline to say that one day that you could be criminally charged but in reality it takes more than one day for someone to get to appoint a landlord to get to a point where they just know they have no other recourse correct. Well I'm certainly not saying anything to be a nice little headline and I can assure you that under this reading of the bill and you can correct me if I'm wrong professor foster I'm not saying that somebody's charged after not fit not vacating after one day I'm saying that somebody can be one day late at which point their landlord can then issue the ten day notice that says you have ten days to vacate that may not be what most landlords do I'm sure that it's not what most landlords do but that is permissible under my reading of the law and correct me if I'm wrong no that is absolutely the way the law reads okay and I I guess the thing I'm asking is do you have a case and and even an anecdotal case where someone has been charged with failure to vacate after being laid on their rent for one day. I don't know of one but when you read these cases in court connect the details are not online so it's impossible to see that. Okay thank you representative Matt action of questions thank you my questions for president foster fest foster I'm somewhat familiar with that is used to work years ago I would say about my my river recollection was that it kind of based on your example someone's late. The lands or give them notice they do not comply with the notice by getting out then the landlord has to contact either the identity share for share for the city city place to go we should take it that ticket is issued usually in my jurisdiction it's a thirty day you know you have court apartment thirty days so they have thirty days knowing before their arraignment that the landlord wants them out this is after the when I was trying to get them out but in in my experience that's how it worked and then they would show up in every time the district judge would say. If you'll get out in ten days if you have twenty days or thirty days I will do anything we don't I never saw fine I never saw anything at I saw a fairly effective way to get people out and to be Frank and honest assessment questions my questions don't you agree but also to be Frank that that's in the process works but to be Frank you know you talked about lawyers and there is a civil remedy but a lot of attorneys and I hate to you know I'm not speaking for all of us but we don't necessarily want to do these cases we have to charge a lot to do these cases I sometimes recommend people to go this route because it's just not something we wanted this on on kind of extemporaneous is is my way I laid out the time frame of how it works is that how it works ma'am. in my reading of the cases from twenty twenty in most places there's usually about a week between the time that the charges issued and the clean arrangement is held it's it's not as long as thirty days and Yes you can make the argument that that this is a fairly quick procedure unlawful detainer can be a fairly quick procedure because their attendance is only given five days in which to respond and if they don't respond in that time and to pay a deposit into the registry of the court they can be immediately evicted under a writ of possession so we do have other eviction procedures which are just as fast and arguably faster if the tenant pleads not guilty at the plant arrangement than there has to be a trial and that trial is going to be set even further off. Thank you I I guess the follow up with the Hey give them my experience it they will come into court I one of this what you see and the judges say look if you'll get out ten days or twenty days or thirty days this will just go away isn't that kind of how the process works or is and how the process works anymore in your experience it's it's going to depend on the court the courts in garland county typically issue these no contact orders and that can complicate the tenants moving out because if they can't go back to the rental unit obviously they can't get their stuff out of the rental unit and that can cause problems also the judges will typically find the tenants with restitution area amounts to pay the landlord back and to require the tenants to come back the tents and the landlords to come back for review hearings and those can drag on so in terms of how many of these are just simple procedures with nothing further happening in the tenant leaving immediately I would say fewer than half. Kasich's insurgent Maddox that I think it's sort of not to get too bird's eye view about all of this but I do think that we need to consider when making policy you know what's going to drive that decision and I and I don't think that saying well this is a nice threat to be able to execute because of and you know even if eventually these these charges follow way I don't think that that's a reason to keep a really bad law in place because when they don't fall away when people don't appear and they don't and and then you do have their driver's license revoked for these daily fines or any of those other number of things you know we have to really ask what damage is being done just to have this tool that maybe I had a useful way to get people out very quickly but certainly not a necessary one. Okay thank you representative ray and then representative brown. my questions were or asked by representative Penzo and and the chairman so you almost been read my mail okay and I believe representative Brown wake me off as well I don't see any other questions of the representative Gazaway. Thank you Mr. Thank you Mr chairman. So. I guess the distinction that I want. Someone to maybe articulate is and I don't think there's any question as representative Maddox said whether or not this is a quick and effective procedure because it is a quick and effective way to get someone out the question or the issue that I see is is this not using the coercive power of the criminal process in the coercive power of the state. To essentially affect someone on a civil debt or a civil breach of contract when typically we allow that to be taken care of in fact almost exclusively allow that to be taken care of through the civil process so what I would like someone to do is to explain about that using the coercive power of the state and the criminal process for what is recognized as a civil remedy which is eviction can someone address that please thank you. Thank you representative Gazaway. I think when we draw the distinctions between these two processes we see very sharply the differences in a civil proceeding the landlord would be the plaintiff in the criminal proceeding the landlord is viewed as the victim by the law the tenant in a civil proceeding is a civil defendant and in a criminal proceeding there is a criminal defendant and so the verdict would be guilty OR not guilty of course most of the time it is guilty because it's criminal attended whose fails to appear instead of being subject to a default judgment as they would be in civil court is now guilty of another criminal offense failure to appear failure to pay. A charge levied by the court is another crime failure to pay violation of a no contact order is a violation of another crime. And so as these crimes are over on the criminal side Penalties for violating a crime include fines sometimes quite large fines representative Clowney use the term and snared in the criminal justice system and that will not happen to people who are in the civil justice system at all attendant can't be arrested if it's a civil unlawful detainer case that's an impossibility so that's what you're referring to I assume by the coercive power of the state follow up. And so to be clear when these cases are brought. The case would be styled for instance State of Arkansas versus someone right that's exactly right it would not be you know. J. D. rentals verses defendant it's state of Arkansas verses is that correct correct okay. Okay representive wait and then representive eleven. Thank you Mr chairman I thank all of our party answer this but I just wanted to crystallize in my mind so what this is the current law is failure to vacate so I'm I'm staying there is the criminal act which results in a fine and then the next step is my failing to pay the fine then could result in jail is that a good. Okay. Thank you. Okay representive eleven thank you Mr of it of represent cloning for doctor foster either one to the picture of of this is really being painted I think is in the minds of everyone sitting on the side of the table that what we're talking about is the family that's in an apartment or is is in a is in a rental home and they're not able to pay the rent but by striking all this code does this also include The the small business owner that that has office space that they are renting to someone to operate their business in or because it also talks about lands are we talking about potentially landowner who is renting that land to a farmer and they're not paying their rent and so you we talk about the the no contact order but we're not in that case they might not have positions to come back to that land to get the they're just not paying the rent on what they're doing with that lands or this is not exclusive to just rental property as far as someone using as a residence this is striking also. Business rentals and land rentals as well is that correct. Yes that's correct it applies in any landlord tenant situation I will say that I'm unaware of any case where this has been used with respect to a business but I did read one case where a woman's horses were grazing on someone else's landed she was renting that land from them and they filed criminal charges against her because she hadn't paid rent for the land the horses were grazing on. Thank you representative representative Lundstrum your back. You're fine okay all right at this point a representative Richardson. Thank you Mr chair just just wanna be clear on a couple things have you been contacted by anybody from the landlord association. Now what about the realtors association no thank you okay thank you. Okay well at this point we're going to move to the for and against and since we've had a considerable time obviously for we're going to first ask for the against and let me go to the top of the list. Of the first person speak against and skews me representative for a motion your motion is I moved to limit debate two three minutes per Speaker that is a proper motion all those in favor of the motion to limit debate to three minutes per Speaker signify by saying aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it each Speaker will be limited to three minutes each we we we won't be looking at a cumulative number. Of first William Jones with the landlords association you're recognized to speak against. Good morning Mr chairman committee on William Jones I'm president of the Arkansas landlords Education and I would appreciate your vote against repealing the failure to vacate ordinance like representative plan he said it is an effective tool it is not only used for evictions believe one representative asked for a for instance as you might of noticed your property values are going up and and people are selling their homes I have a particular home that's for sale with a tenant in it and they don't want to move. There's no rent at issue here. I'm gonna sell the property it's a business decision. So I'm forced to use failure to vacate. In order to regain possession of my property. It is it is it is an effective addiction proceeding it does not require an attorney which saves me a considerable amount of money. I find a little disingenuous and and grossly biased that that no alternative has been submitted. It seems that It seems that it would it would be fair. To at least present something that is as effective as failure to vacate Instead of just completely doing away with with the current statute. Thank you okay thank you we do have some questions for you if is willing to submit a representative Alan. thank you Mr chairman I didn't quite catch your name Sir William Jones okay thank you Mr Jones to come today one thing that deeply concerns me is that when a member have the bill and it's been out there for awhile. And its opposition against the bill. It bothers me. That the people opposing the bill. That will reach out to the representative present the bill. A couple with some type of compromise they went over the years of happen it is the same thing that's happening today people come to speak speak for the bills come people come speak against sharia representative Richmond riches and ask the good question and that question wheels. Where you wish to contact the value of the realtors and she said no so my question to you in the relatives why did you all reach out to represent Clowney and talk with her before today. That's a fair question and if if the bill had been proposed with amendments or changes. We may have seen that as an option but as I understand this is striking the entire statute. So it didn't seem like negotiation was was in the cards let me I'm going to at this point interject on this line of questioning. The public is at a great disadvantage right now in terms of Bills they'd almost have to hire a lobbyist to be able to see every bill that is referred and many of them don't see it until it actually is placed on our agenda and I've been very careful to not have bills on the agenda is in perpetuity for several weeks so I just want to clarify that and and As far as that it's really the process that is actually limiting the public from from being involved but representive valley you can have your follow up. I guess my question is this the represent kind of windy two thousand. What what was the bill filed. March eighteenth. Okay both of a state. Thank. This bill has been out there for two weeks about. And it is the and and I I agree with some of the things that you say but if this bill has been out there for two weeks I guarantee you. Today is not the first day that you saw this bill this bill been out there for awhile so all I'm saying is that. Instead of coming after speaking why didn't you all reach out to represent a currently in trying to come up with a compromise. Well as I stated before if you're striking an entire statute it doesn't appear to me that you're willing to compromise you want it gone. Well I don't I don't I disagree with that this one from the okay. Just thank you you came back I have a you can reach out the hay runs let's talk about this you are eliminating the entire statute that see if we can compromise on. But it appears to me that there was no compromise. This is my opinion in. Senator Alan that you appear to me that there was no compromise thank thank you representive Alan representive Boyd you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair so Mr Jones thank you for being here today I I appreciate you being here and and your testimony. So earlier in the session we actually had a bill where there was a civil process to move people out and then somehow that was removed for the bill so I'm not gonna focus on that today because I have to stay focused on this bill could you tell me what is different in Arkansas how does this work say in Oklahoma or another state were you know we we get people out without going through a criminal process I mean what is the alternative thank. I don't have any experience of eighteen people in Oklahoma but the process in Arkansas is. Either the failure to vacate or as was previously stated the civil addiction process which requires an attorney typically. Follow up representive Boyd. No follow up representative brown. Thank you Mr chair. Mr Johnson I'm listening to this testimony. And. What is kind of troubling to me is that. In my perspective I know that there are big landlords big wealthy landlords but the most of our landlords in Arkansas our folks just like you and me. We're just regular folks and we have we might have a few properties are a lot of properties do you feel that this line of questioning makes it sound as if you these these big horrible landlords out there ready to run people out of their property in in just kick them out I mean look I. For me the perception is totally skewed would you agree. A small landlord is probably one of the most. Long suffering. People that I have ever met. I only have a lack of patience when I'm lied to or deceived. Or stolen from and that's usually what causes an eviction or failure to vacate Small landlords are not only landlord's their maintenance personnel there's the plumbers and electricians and the roofers and painters and their drywall repairs and they do these things to benefit the tenant. That's what they live for that's what provides that's what put cheese on the table. They do these things and they continue to be part trade like representative brown says as this huge horrible entity that that trying to gobble up poor people. And the fact of the matter is most of our landlords are small investors. And at the end of the day you could classify them as poor people they get up they work hard they make a living and they go home. So the betray them is this huge corporate entity that just gobbles people up and leaves devastation in their wake is is a gross misrepresentation. And. Thank you thank you thank you Mr Jones for your testimony and for answering questions thank you speaking for the bill is right is her bright. The. And please just identify yourself for the record my name is herb right of a circuit judge in Pulaski County I'm speaking on behalf of the Arkansas Bar Association support this bill I'm not speaking on behalf of the judicial council which is taken no position on this bill. A. I'm in circuit court I've previously been a District Court judge also I've handled these cases was an attorney of handle as a district judge not handle Mrs circuit judge. A. And while there are great arguments for both sides. What what this. What the situation basically is is a contract between two people. The way the statute is reach right now is. If you don't pay the rent and you don't vacate by the time you have the hearing. Then you're guilty of this crime. Period. That gives the defendant no of recourse to any. A defense that he may have. Of. An example that would be last week I had a hearing on unlawful detainer. And we're doing court on zoom here in Pulaski County so the defendant is in her apartment. And there is a strip about the size one of these lights cut through her ceiling from. That runs the length of her apartment. The apartment owner had had some plumbing work done. The contractor comes in and cuts the hole in her ceiling. And then never replaces hello per lecture to build them for February was a thousand dollars. That's that would be a pretty good defensive a breach of contract I didn't pay the rent because I'm not getting what I'm. The other side's not upholding their side of the contract he'd. And the what this statute does it strips away one party's rights under contract. And there is a huge difference between. Being found not guilty being found guilty. And being told well the the state you're wrong you have to move out your your defense isn't good enough and a lot of folks just want to be heard in a civil unlawful detainer you come in you tell your side and a look at it your reason for not paying rent might not been good enough you move you you need to move out and you're given a date certain that if you don't move out the shares going to come over move yeah. In a in a disk under this statute the defendant risks. Finds in a large amount if they think they have a reasonable defense to to being evicted. And they want to go tell the court their side of. Okay I'll be glad to take questions thank you thank you judge. Representative fielding have questions. Thank you Mr chairman the the you said you a difficult all circuit court of the I'm circuit court now I have previously been District Court so when you how long you been served the this is my thirteenth year okay and circuit and district judge Ruben over the estimate those for four years now what the state District Court judge I was in rifle Arkansas okay so how many states you have you had a nickel the this year under the criminal statute yes zero Pulaski County prosecutor will not fall cases under this statute. Thank you. Thank you members any other questions for this witness. Thank you very much thank you speak now against is Paul Calvert. Thank you my name is Paul Calvert and To the question that was raised earlier about why some of us didn't come to miss Clowney. They know that those morning I'm sorry but I actually would have known about it even and even then I guess have been doing my homework well enough but representative Boyd asked me about it and it kind of caught me off guard and so I I had about. Twenty minutes to study and and so there are some kind of interesting things if we want to amended that might actually be kind of cool and I I saw this years ago when I kind of lost track of it but in a line thirty three. Talk about pawn conviction before any justice of the peace or the court of competent jurisdiction. I think it would be cool to actually work with this statute to to enable and maybe get the justices of the peace. To be able to hear these cases because one of the major problems that we have as landlords and tenants is that the courts are to stink and slow they can't address the problems in a timely manner and so if I've got a tenant that's just destroying a piece of property I need about tomorrow I don't need to wait a month because they may be doing irreparable harm to my property and in so the courts are just too slow for that if we could have something like a like a a justice of the peace to to hear these cases quicker that might be something we should should maybe dig into and it may maybe revive this statute to to use it that way so that's that's something that that I noticed that maybe could be abused. now take custody of the comments here. So the Arkansas constitution recognizes that the right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction and that's article two section twenty two about half of it maybe. And. There is some points about will other in other or even the same contractual obligations if you would doesn't include criminal offenses but the reality is it does even in the in any civil eviction case if the if the tenant doesn't believe after court or they'll be arrested if if they resist the the the being vacate vacated the property. Another thing to to mention by the statute it only applies if the tenant willfully refuses and so if if there's a if they're sick or the hospital or some of that nature they can't be accused or or be convicted at least of willfully refusing to leave and so if there's a valid reason like I did willfully do I pledge wasn't any it wasn't anything I could do about it so there's a there's a case to be made their. And one more thing is that the rental contract is the only thing that separates a person from being a trespasser verses being someone who's rightfully on the property and so they don't have that contract the rental contract they're trespassing and so if they violate that rental contract that it's it's an active trespassing or it should be and so I wouldn't be opposed to to actually roll over this I'm sorry your time is running out of thank you can members are there any questions for this witness if you're willing to submit questions to answer any questions. If not thank you very much thank you Committee speaking for the bill next is. Kendall Llewellyn. Good morning thank you for having me here today. My name is Kendall well and I'm here on behalf of the centre for Arkansas legal services we are a nonprofit civil legal aid provider we represent hundreds of Arkansas Tennessee each year across forty four counties our program has seen a sharp decline in failure to vacate cases in the past five years as far as I know there are only a handful of cities that are still willing to enforce failure to vacate because it is strongly disfavored by prosecutors judges and the general public. I believe that failure to vacate is harmful and I also believe that it is unnecessary I once represented a woman who had recently given birth when the police came to her home then handcuffed her and took her into custody in front of her neighbors and her children for failure to vacate. She was acquitted at trial her landlord admitted that she had actually refused to the tenants rent in order to evict her. Essentially without paying for her own lawyer she rented from a large property management company they could have probably afforded counsel. However the arrest and charge still appeared on this woman's criminal record through no fault of her own. Tenants are more likely to be arrested for related charges such as failure to appear or failure to pay fines which sort of snowballed from the original failure to vacate charge over time this can have devastating consequences especially because of fiction disproportionately affects women and particularly mothers who could have custody issues that are affected by their prolonged involvement with the criminal justice system. I am. But just to say this does not happen with civil infections none of that happens and I'm sympathetic to the fact that landlords do not feel that the courts are accessible to them that's a sad reality for many people however the solution to a civil access to justice problems is not to turn civil debts into crimes. When words like failure to vacate because it gives them a quick affordable way to evict tenants however they don't need the criminal justice system to do that a contested failure to vacate case could actually take longer than a Civil affection Arkansas already has to summary of action procedures that allow landlords to evict tenants faster than the rules of civil procedure would normally allow for any other type of business there's unlawful detainer and circuit court and the the Arkansas residential landlord tenant act less used but in District Court landlords when the vast majority of unlawful detainer cases by default when the tenant fails to file a written objection within five days it's a very fast process they're also small claims courts in Arkansas with weekly eviction dockets where landlords evict tenants under the resident Arkansas residential landlord tenant act they do this at very little cost. Ms Lee well and I'm sorry your time is running out but there are several members that want to ask questions if you're willing yes representive Richardson and then representative board. Thank you Miss World for being here the you mentioned that you your organization currently service forty four counties throughout the state yes and you also mentioned that of there are few cities that actually still in that or follow this statute right do you know those cities. It is primarily going to be hot springs Texarkana I think a little bit in Russellville Springdale and in Southeast Arkansas okay thanks thank you representative board. So just I'm trying to clarify this in my own mind yes so if I failed to vacate and I went up with funds and then I failed to pay them at some point when I have them to have access to public defender to to defend myself not necessarily depending on whether or not the charges that you're facing have the necessary amount of jail time. Okay thank you any other questions members if not thank you Mr Mr well thank you our last Speaker against the bill is represented McGrew. Please identify yourself for the record. Thank you Mr chairman and Richard McGrew I come here today representing the group properties in hot springs which is in garland county and came because I wasn't going to speak but when I heard what was going on there so many things it's misleading you let me make understand it is impossible impossible to give someone a figure to vacate and tool they have been notified ten days ahead of time and even at that ten days ahead of time then after that you have to get an officer to to to file the notice they have to catch the person home. And and then the judge normally if you can get one in within two weeks you're doing good. I've been member properties it's been since nineteen eighty eight the quickest it up ever been able to get someone through this and I'm a big conversation do it very efficiently to tell you very quickly if you read for me and you have given this information and your you have to read it understand it and initial this paragraph that says if you don't pay me on the fifth all rent to do on the first on the fifth you will receive. That you're behind on the tent you'll receive this ten day notice so on the twentieth after you lived there twenty days free. Then you get this citation that will result in maybe two weeks later in the history since nineteen eighty eight I have never ever been able to get anybody out any quicker than forty five to fifty days in each usually more like ninety days if you look at the average of what it is from a landlord it's probably more like four months because the smaller landlords don't understand this like I do. So would you understand also never in the history of Arkansas to my knowledge of political attack me on this and I told him go do the research and come back and prove it to me and they couldn never has anyone ever been fined or went to jail for this ordinance it is as simple as the same thing you would get for failure to stop to stop sign it's that simple. And as for the coercion from using the criminal justice system it's not anymore if you. I'm a little contractor I can wear around a meter still electricity in if I do that. I can that can sure jump on me and find me if it's my they can get me for felony for something as simple to steal electricity and if I'm a poor person that can't afford an hour around me here because I've had him do that. As far as a circuit judge in with all respect he don't hear these cases because they're in District Court so he doesn't really know about these cases the judges that I deal with them Garland County you're happy to do it and we work with and we also work with the police force to help with the tennis nobody advocate for the lower in more than May. And with all due respect Mr Allen and and respected cloning if you're going to do this bill because as you said the landlords to know this bill come up I'm a state representative I just noticed it over the weekend that it was on the agenda of what was going on why didn't she reach out to those people that she knew that it would affect. And me say one other thing that I am already I'm. The. I'm not necessarily for the criminal part. If you take this away you're going to increase across the medically I've checked that we're not trying to quit the cheapest I can get it is a thousand dollars because he's got to go to circuit court with an attorney I can't represent myself. It's going to increase the cost which is result represented Andrew I'm sorry your time's running out of members of there any questions for this witness. Representative Penzo. I was curious how much it cost you'd started elaborate on cost to abate could you finish that for me on how much it cost of eight. Well the is a landlord is the minimum is a thousand and they can go up depending on what happens from them and the time extends out it actually to be honest with you can be here quicker in the illegal detainer but it costs a lot more money which results on raising prices to the lowest also if I can just get one statement out I promise to work on a bill that will take the criminal Perrier and work at the District Court the date where an attorney didn't have to be used and it's fair to the landlord I'm already working on it but I'm running into thank and have Supreme Court representative I'm sorry we're not gonna understand I'm sorry to pay and that's okay here but that's have you know maybe represented Leinster will lead you that way represent Lundstrum yes I am I am interested and and working on that as well we talk about the renter. is staying free in these properties and how long did you say that takes it to bare minimum I would say the average for landlord gonna manage at least three months at may that have done this a lot and know how to do it and work and also once they also give the tenet an opportunity to do a payment thing but may that does it all that does this you know the quickest I can usually get amount is about sixty days so the renter gets free rent and the attorneys get paid when do you get paid. When do I get paid I don't get paid to let them out and fix the repairs and get and I can say I've had tenants get mad at me for doing this I can think of one example showed over three thousand dollars and when I use the issue to whom the human feces all over the wall and destroyed two units the cost to me was huge you know we only. You know I get aggravated because of people that want to do this I need to consider the landlords okay thank you okay thank you I think representative Richardson you weighed me off is that right okay members of there any other questions. Okay if not thank you very much and representative council we will move to you to close. Sure and committee I promise to keep this short but I do just want to address a few things that I heard I heard landlord's mention I'm using this statute because of destruction of property or sale of the property I just want to point out that this statute can only be used for non payment of rent it's in the code so if it's being used for those other reasons I guess that's another reason that we really need to take repealing this seriously but it doesn't apply to those instances I certainly would not want to wouldn't want anything that I've said today to be construed as per training landlords as any of the things that that I heard and I certainly don't think that about the vast majority of landlords that I know this isn't about portraying landlords as the bad guys this is about whether government should be a party to such strong arm tactics to save landlords money when we don't do that we don't use the government that way in any other scenario because this should be a civil issue our law enforcement are courts should be used for public safety not this as we've heard it many prosecutors and judges across the state don't do this anymore on the use of the statutes relatively rare but it's impacting its harms are still very real. And the landlords have all the civil protections on their side this bill doesn't take away any of those it only keeps a bad situation from getting worse for the tenant. Risking a poor attendance future. By opening them up to all that comes with criminal charges seems to me to move the issue from a business issue to an issue of just humanity and compassion. Every other state has managed to do just fine without a criminal addiction statute. Arkansas can to and without I'm closed and I'm a do pass. K. members we do have a do pass as there any discussion by members of the committee. Representive board. Thank you Mr chair and and I don't want to go off topic but I I am frustrated that we discuss legislation on helping with the civil process and now we're at the end of the the legislative session and you know we can't the the we're going to interrupt the way things work without an alternative solution thank. K.. Any other discussion. Represent Gazaway. Thank you Mr chair there's very little that I can add to what representive Clowney said because I think she did an excellent job covering and I just wanna make clear what I think are a few important distinctions in that part of what I asked my question earlier to professor foster which is. It is completely unique to Arkansas that we of Lao this process where you use the power of the state. Against a civil contract and so a lease is a contract and when a landlord and tenant enter enter into a lease they have a civil agreement. And when the tenant violates that leased by not paying we then and again no other state in the country does this but we allow the state of Arkansas as a party and that's the way the case the style when it goes to court again it's not you know JT rentals LLC versus whoever it is that's running the property per the lease it's the state of Arkansas. Verses those tenants and that's unprecedented. No where else in the country do they allow this that point to tell you something it has been said earlier if you don't pay your mortgage you don't get charged for the crime if you don't pay your credit card you don't get charged for the crime if you don't pay your car note and they come repossession car they repossess your car but you don't get charged with a crime. You don't pay your rent according to a civil contract over in Arkansas you get charged with a crime. That is unique to the state it's nowhere else in the country is because every other state has recognized that we need to make the distinction between the civil law which is a civil process based on a lease which is what this is and not criminal offenses and again. The way this law is primarily used as because of the coercive power it's the state of Arkansas and every thing that stands behind the state of Arkansas against tenants. And that says a lot again a you know representive ray made good points earlier that this is not because of the failure to pay this is failure to vacate so the crime is not because someone didn't pay their rent the crimes because they received ten days notice after they've not paid the rent and they've not left the premises they fail to vacate never the less my argument to you is it's an improper use of the criminal process. It in what is essentially a civil matter every other state is done away with it we should too I agree with representative Boyd we need to have a quick easy and cheap civil process and District Court for landlords not all landlords are bad best majority of landlords or great. And they do right by their tenants we need to have a quick process for them easy and cheap the District Court but charging people with crimes is not the right approach it's a good bill I'm going to vote for it thank you representive Clowney. Thank you. Of have a couple of others who want to come in I I'm going to come at this time specially about the issue of the power of the state after we heard of testimony in the last session about renters rights and habitability standards and all that I have someone contact me who had at one point worked for the state worked as a social worker and she indicated to me that she was instructed by a a by her immediate supervisors on how to advise. People in the state on how to get around eviction processes how to be able what time of the year is the best time for you to enter into a new contract for a new apartment and then probably be able to get three or four months free rent and I find that to be the power of the state and so I don't find it overly a truce of to be able to balance that to protect the property rights of people who are you know these anecdotes dental stories we hear about apartments being destroyed and and the cost those are just anecdotal that's happening all over the state of Arkansas and so I'll just to leave it with that I think representative Penzo did you have. Comment no debate you're recognized. The. We we we had had discussions on of a better way to do of actions earlier in the year wouldn't with Clowney but it was in the the the tenant building Gazaway had You know your term anecdotal stories I mean I've got a client back home eighty two his daughter called me. This I came out of the system with the eviction process four months ago on by. Tens of thousands of dollars of damage is taking place. We've got an eighty two year old man who was bogged down in the system and. To to to alternately six months to get the tenant out there's tens of thousand dollars of damage due to a ruptured pipe in the basement that the owner wasn't told about flooded room HVAC system amidst the. Man the floor was crawling with maggots and cockroaches and I mean there's there's bigger issues here than just eliminating a tool I mean there there needs to be a a comprehensive remodel on on this addiction process or needs to be more tools in place I mean you have to balance tenant rights with the landlord rights because not every landlord is a corporation you've got eighty plus year old people out there in their their retirement was ruined by bad ten tens of thousands of dollars of damage are upside down this property now they don't have you know this is all this money has to be sent back into the property in order to get it back up to where they can sell it misses this has nothing directly to do with with this bill but indirectly it does because if there was a better tool to get tenants out there bad tenants. And here we are eliminating a tool. That is utilized by our Kansans to get tenants that I just I just think it's wrong I mean the the landlord tenant bill that it needs to have something in it to replace this if we're even going to discuss limiting limiting this section of code so I mean I I just I can't vote for this and you know I've you know we've been working on this for years trying to get something with habitability standards in place and a better of election process but eliminating of an of a tool before we replace the tool is is is not the way to do this. Thank you thank you representative Lundstrum you're recognized. I'd like to echo what representative Penzo said and we talk about course of power but we don't talk about property rights of the people that have built their futures and their retirement and and socket into building a good home and then renting it out to someone and we talk about course of power when people damage your property and rip it to shreds and then don't pay rent this is a tool in that toolbox to get them out of that property and it's heartbreaking to watch it be ripped to shreds failure to vacate. That's part of the process they have your property and they need to move out when they're stealing from you they are stealing from you they're stealing from small and large long lived at large landlords it doesn't matter this is that tool that we need and I would strongly urge people not to vote for this bill. Thank you a representative for a. Thank you Mr chairman You know I think representative Clowney makes some valid and interesting points about this bill and the the same can be said for representative Gazaway I thought his comments were thoughtful. I'm a no on this bill a couple points at all make the. The not being able to pay the the the idea that you're criminalized for not being able to pay rent. Is sort of a canard because the statute is extremely clear that its failure to vacate that is the problem. And if you do fail to vacate your keeping someone else's property I mean that is that is a a huge violation of that person's private property rights In the testimony it was specifically referenced that people were being handcuffed and taken away. and yet there was no available evidence given of people being arrested for this if you're if you're arrested it's for failure to appear in court. Similarly the idea that one day late on your rent leads to this criminal charge it is just not accurate because of the the ten day notice you know listening to the landlord's testimony and talking to landlords on this the. I fear that this is going to drive up housing costs that it's going to reduce the availability of low income housing and that some landlords may just choose not to rent to low income tenants and as a result that's bad for low income tenants they need places to rent And the last thing I'll say is over the past year I've really been concerned about how maybe it's the pandemic and how it's affected people's attitudes toward certain things but I have heard specifically from a number of people who have said something to the effect of. I don't understand why I'm being asked to pay rent in a pandemic. And I find I find that attitude. Extremely troubling extremely troubling. yes housing is a need but so so is food I mean you can't just walk into a Kroger and walk out with groceries without paying and and philosophically you know that that is due echo what representative Lundstrum said that is in effect stealing so um I have some. Okay representative brown. Thank you Mr chair and. I believe it's Mr Jones that spoke earlier a lot of landlords are not wealthy people they are. Verging on for poverty themselves and they rent of mobile homes and things at a very very reduced price than what we ordinarily think of as nice apartments in town that rent for two three four times what they are charging for a mobile home. to room and and I'm certain that most of them don't bother to get a credit check or criminal background check and they relate to people at these low rates and to remove this tool when they are actually providing housing for people who can't afford high rents I think we are creating a problem up for affordable housing in our state and the best thing that we can do is to. Improve our education and job opportunities for our people so they don't have to rent it such. Low income properties and and find themselves in these situations but landlords need help to. And I will be a no on this bill. Representative Hodges okay I I'm a very brief of a very very brief of we belabor this point the fourth of me yes on this on this on this You hear me. But if you lean into a little bit but there are other cross to all thank you thank you didn't Clowney for bringing this up you know I'm a landlord of commercial property and have of rental houses and does too Richmond gather ways point you know and I'm a banker as well you know we don't file criminal charges against those that that we have to foreclose on the home's without judgment we garnish your wages and things that nature but we don't we don't arrest them if we have to report their cars and all that so I think the deferred a good bill I'll be voting yes from a landlord standpoint. Thank you members we're gonna move to vote at this time. All those in favor of house bill seventeen ninety eight and that would be the do pass potion signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. The nose haven't. Okay have expected that call okay we have a roll call well it's a good call it was the right call but that's okay we will roll call this. The. Now there was good there was good echo off the wall and are. we will roll call as. Emily okay. We're gonna roll call this. Representative Murdock. Yes yes representative building yeah yes representative Deborah Ferguson. Representative Deborah Ferguson. Representative Hodges. Yes representative Lundstrum. Now the representative Kenneth Ferguson yes yes representative Boyd. Now representative Vivian flowers. Representative flowers. Representative brown. Now. Representative Alan yes representative Gazaway yes yes representative Pilkington. Representative Pilkington. Representative Penzo. Now. Representative William. Representative William. Representative Clowney yes. President of Richardson yes yes. Representative eleven. Now representative ray. Now. Representative Maddox now. Sorry representative your bill did not pass. Resin Lowery you are recognized to present HB eighteen oh two. Thank you Mr chairman glad to be before you specially glad to be able to to walk down here rather than have a discutir down still got it a little bit to keep weight off the foot this bill I I made a brief presentation to the committee gosh several weeks ago right now there is a letter being passed out to you from the national association of mutual insurance companies of they just sent this to me I don't know if it went to the The members of the committee are not that they want to make sure that you had it in hand. Of saying. Looking for my did I leave my classes up there a reading glasses. Not I'm at a great disadvantage here anyway Davis signified their support. Let's see if those will work. Well that's pretty good. Thank you of and at this point that I'd like to have I know one of the questions that came the last time I presented one was from members wanting to hear from the insurance department and I'm going to ask not necessarily I don't think that they're taking a position of advocacy but they will be able to provide information to you about how this may be a a good good tool in the Insurance market place so I allow my witness to a recognized to identify himself yes Sir if you would please identify yourself for the record and you can proceed with your testimony thank you Mr I'm generator on the general counsel with the insurance department and representative Lowery actually came to us a few weeks ago and discusses and discussing this topic I he might have understated we we didn't run our traps to become able to you know offer support or included in our package but we uh if we are are I guess we're so officially were neutral but we do think this is a probably a pretty good idea of what this bill does I think I saw Mr arts or resent Lowery president he actually gave a really good presentation on it with a couple of personal anecdotes of experiences you have but. When you're getting a a roof replaced a few the storms gone through or you know a lot of times it happens in the clusters you'll have some companies that will hold tight to the price and make you pay your deductible and some that want that obviously puts those folks that will will kind of cut that corner of the competitive advantage but the problem is that action would be prohibited now just not expressly because you could read that as are you there is a good argument that is insurance fraud at some point the insurance company for example things that roof cost ten thousand dollars someone somewhere submitted paperwork to that insurance companies make you believe it was ten thousand dollars and the policy holder was going to pay its his or her thousand dollar deductible for example if the referred cuts that thousand dollars off. The insurance company is paying higher than what the actual value of that was and so that's where it can become fraud I won't say who because you got some scenarios where it might be the policy holder that submits the paperwork in most cases it's going to be the roofing company that does it and so if there is a misrepresentation there and that one's of being I think that a particularly not just for all of us as consumers of of insurance but also for the more scrupulous roofing companies to maintain their the ethical and legal you know guidelines I I was kind of ward against this you might argue that there or. Refers that will say well I'm going to put a sign in the yard and I will I will discount if you leave it there for three or four weeks all discount that by. Thousand dollars loan behold it almost always matches what your deductible is again the insurance company is not privy to that transaction and I don't believe that the insurance company at the end of that tax year would send you a ten ninety nine but you could argue that's income that you should a report I don't ever hear of that being the case so this is not my area of expertise but and I don't want to overstate it but I think you could characterize as potential being tax fraud as well so with those that examples I think this kind of spills up a pretty good view of representative Lauer's bill or be glad to answer any questions. Thank you questioned by the committee. Okay saying none do we have anyone signed up for anyone in the room was speak against the bill. Regularity of anyone else that you'd like to speak for the bill no as just the representation of the the letter that you have before you from account sociais Asian says that they represent I believe over half of property and casualty companies in the state of Arkansas of not heard from any of the other companies either for or against but you know this is something it doesn't criminalize and anyway the actions of the homeowner but it does clarify that the roofing company would have to submit a statement where it says an twelve point type that that that homeowners responsible for the deductible and that there should not be any representation that they don't have to pay the deductible you know all of us in our own homes we'd love to have a new roof okay it helps the value of our home especially for going to resell but it's not right for us to take advantage of a loophole situation where a roofing company comes and says listen I'll give you a brand new rule of insurance companies basically gonna pay for this and you're not going to be out of time so this is really a good market place issue you know I've talked to some repeat affected friend of mine who's with a roofing company wanted to testify for this and I said well so what do you do to do the advertising medium or the advertising bonus the goes well I have to to be competitive I said I don't think you'll be a good witness. Because you're actually yeah I mean if you want to say listen I'm just going to I'm going to take my chances and I'm not going to offer that discount then I'd love to have you down here but he says I would rather and I know a lot of reputable Rev roofing companies would rather that the the market place B. B. even that everyone's operating under that same guideline and so for all those reasons I would appreciate a good vote on this and I'll make a motion of do pass. Thank heaven Lowery so we have a motion do pass on the floor to the appropriate motion is there any discussion on the motion. Saying none all in favor say aye. Any opposed no. Graduation your bill is passed thank you very much members. I think a minute two. Representative Murdock do you would you like to present your bill next. I'm gonna do a C. wanted to start a. I think it's going to go. I was just gonna say members of the committee there is an amendment being passed out representative Murdock you're recognized yes I have amendment to house bill fifty fifty seven is agreed upon and that this twenty myself in into G. particularly and I'd like to move to pass for the amendment first of all okay that is an appropriate motion we have a motion do pass on the amendment only all in favor hi. Any opposed say no. Your amendment has passed an amendment again is being passed out so take a look at that and reserve Murdock you're recognized to present your bill thank you to the Committee and chair real quick this bill just simply if you remember in recently we had a some the snow storm that Kay of accomplished a whole state and there were some situations where power and and the source for power and energy and and like Tricity specifically became a somewhat The question or the capacity for the production of it and they have to be some decisions made on setting out in some areas of the state of for energy consumption this simply is a bill because what happened when that happened in me and happy your ear to certainly happened in mine is there were some areas that was shut down and the notices to people that did not have internet or the other capacities to make them assessable to know that this was coming all of a sudden they were without power that was for a legitimate reason because of the power greeted took on so much it was such a eighty eight a a terrible time from energy consumption standpoint that they have to make some decisions this bill is just a notification bill I just wanna make sure that our utilities and everyone involved our local communities have as best as much notice as possible so they can let you know specifically that the elderly those those frail people that need power what we can possibly work together the local community you know the people of your community you know the frail the sick the elderly you know all your mayors your county judge know how to reach those people and help them become as safe as possible during that time this is just a a bill to say Hey let's make sure that we stop communicating as best we can as early as possible to let the local authorities know so that they can have the warming centers in a cooling centers of it happens in the summer time available to those that are most needing specifically again or elderly or sick and those that are don't have the capacity to take care of themselves as all this bill does And I work with in the GOP she them for working through the language with me for notification is not meant to be to harm anyone to put any entity in a bad situation and I appreciate a job about the for working with me and make sure that the language was Could go on for that. I'll take any questions thank you represent Murdock for your presentation I believe represent ray has a question. Thank you Mr chairman representa Murdock I know the bill specifically references electric utilities what about water providers. we did not have any occurrence of water the issue so I just address what was an issue which was power and energy consumption of the time I I don't know of any water issues okay yeah I this is. Just a follow up you're recognized more of a comment but there were some instances with water companies you know having to tell people to. Ration water and and reduce water consumption so that may be something just to consider in the future absolutely. Thank you for a any other questions about the committee. Okay saying none I do believe we have some other people who have signed up to speak on this bill I say Mister Thomas back there would you like to approach questions. Okay. let me go about it this way there is anyone out there to speak against this bill. Seeing none anyone else that you'd like to present have speak for the bill representive we're good we like to closed. No I have absolutely recognized for a question no no go ahead Committee. Thank you Mr chair Representative Murdock were were there any people expressed opposition to this bill utilities no one. Know what energies just want to work through it and make sure the language did not unnecessarily put anyone specifically utility in an uncompromised position or something that they could not do so they that and that's what we worked for the centers but they're good with this yes they're here okay thank you in. Thank you representative so again I do not believe there's anyone would like to speak for or against the bill anyone remaining we like to close for your bill represent Murdock I'll close it out of. Recommend due pass thank you Sir mended thank you but thank you so we have a motion do pass as amended which is a proper motion would anyone like to speak on the motion. Seeing none all in favor motion do pass as amended say aye. Any opposed no. Congratulations your bill is passed. Thank you record your you're running representative Bledsoe are Senator Bledsoe as bill okay represented Ferguson you're recognized for senate bill four four six. Thank you Mr chairman thank you committee of I told representative of bought any representative Bledsoe I've run this so they didn't have to take off to come to committee it's essentially just an amendment that we ask for in when they were in the billing committee that I ran a step therapy protocols for of medicines and they inadvertently left off qualified health plans Medicaid expansion from the bill and this just includes them. Okay and that is that's an amendment that you describe it's not amendment thank they did a separate bill because they've are ready to pass the bill okay. Right members are there any questions for representative Ferguson. Okay is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against the bill. For the bill. Not represent Ferguson you're recognized close I'm close to make a motion to pass okay members we have a motion do can't do pass on the Senate bill five four excuse me four forty six any discussion. All those in favor of the motion do pass signify by saying aye. Any opposed say no and there are none thank regulations. Representative Collins thank you for your patience Sir we are ready to hear house bill eighteen twenty four if you have any witnesses you wish to bring to the table they can come at that this point and identify themselves for the record. Thank you Mr this under what's the same from the Arkansas land title association so this bill is and isn't really a change it's more of a clarification both that the title people and the clerks are good within those that are kind of two main interest involved but I will give you some background and missile saying can get into more detail if needed becoming helps to have the lay of the land what we're doing here so if you have a mortgage or deed or some of the documents that you want to record for the public you Senator your county Clerk and all charges fee to cover the work they do and recording it same goes for changing existing records if you send a mortgage assignment or release or modification or correction degeer Clark thought charge a fee for their work and changing that existing underlying record for multiple records in the same document the Clerk will charge you for each record that you're modifying with that single document which makes sense because they're going and expending time and and Labor to change each record so that's kind of the background on how things were generally this bill deals with a specific circumstance where you're recording a document that incidentally mentions an existing record but doesn't actually change it so for example when you recorded deed you might have a list of permitted exceptions to your title insurance policy that's on the deed is just an exhibit might be five or ten records or something out of which are being modified at all but they are there for reference so typically traditionally you would not have to pay a fee for those records that are just being listed because the Clerk doesn't do anything with and know where they're just there for reference. Very recently a couple of personal with the statute felt it was ambiguous they said well we we're gonna charge for each record this is listed in reference because the statute appears to let us do that and so in those cases and there's only been a handful that the fees are very high kinda added proportion to anything obviously that the Clerk is doing so with this bill does is just restates more clearly what's always been the actual practice which is if you a signed release modifier corrected previously recorded instrument you are on the hook for a fee and if you're just mentioning a record no fee and that's all the bill does that the land title association worked with the clerks to fine tune the language so both that association for sensation are good I believe this'll just clarifies things going forward Mitchell St have happy to answer any questions that if you want to say some things you're welcome to as well. hedger Mike to Sir. I think you did an excellent job summarizing that so I'll be happy to take any questions there are okay members are there any questions for representative Collins or his witness. If not is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against the bill. For the bill. Dot you're recognized close thank you I'm close for the bill okay members of the representative is close for his bill is there a motion representive Boyd motion do pass we have a motion of do pass. We get the bill number appear. I believe it's House Bill eighteen twenty four we have a motion to pass any discussion I will go to a voice vote all those in favor do pass on H. B. eighteen twenty four signify by saying aye. Any opposed say no. And there's that congratulations thank you. Representative Penzo. House Bill eighteen thirty four. Thank you Mr chair. House Bill eighteen thirty four was drafted to address time shares scams. Arkansas citizens who own time shears. Or contact often by persons residing how to state wanting to meet with them at a location in Arkansas usually a restaurant or hotel if they agree to meet the scammer may use scare tactics and other approaches to convince the owners to pay several thousands of dollars to get them out of their time shares. Arkansas real estate commission is at several hearings on these activities recently a retired school teacher was scammed out of eleven thousand dollars there's currently a pending complaint from another owner in Clarksville for almost five thousand dollars most victims are elderly. The A. R. C. of the real estate commission currently pursues this under practicing without a real estate license. But they have limited ability to limited leverage to make collections or make them pay if they live outside of the state this bill will give the real estate commission additional authority over this process an increase of the wordy of the AG in prosecuting attorneys to hopefully curb if not eliminate the scams this is a good consumer protection bill and if there are no questions appreciate a good vote. Okay we do have us questions representative brown. Thank you Mr chairman representative Penzo I know we're always hearing the ads on the radio about time share scams and we guarantee we can get you at your time share are those the same as what you're talking about now well there there are a legitimate attorneys and real estate brokers that do help you know assist people get other times years but there are also scammers that prey on people we're just trying to set up a process to identify the scammers and prevent them from taking advantage of our Kansans. Okay thank you okay any other questions. No questions is there anyone in the audience who wish to speak against the bill. For the bill. If not represent Penzo you're recognized close for your bill close and make a motion to pass okay we have a motion to passing discussion by members. If not to vote on the H. B. N.. Remind me the number eighteen thirty four thank you eighteen thirty four signify by saying aye any opposed say no and course there's none and congratulations thank you Committee okay members thank you very much after getting slow down a little bit we make good progress on the rest of bills we will be meeting on Wednesday if you have bills that you'd like