Individual legislator voting records for this vote are not currently available. Includes all politicians who were in office at any point during the 2011-2012 Legislature.

SB 890 - An Act to Add Title 1.6C.5 (Commencing with Section 1788.50) to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, and to Amend Sections 700.010, 706.103, 706.104, 706.108, and 706.122 Of, and to Add Section 581.5 To, the Code of Civil Procedure, Relating to Debt Buyers.

Debt buyers. 2011-2012 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
(1)Existing state and federal law regulate the practice of debt collection. Existing state law prohibits a debt collector from engaging in specified conduct, including the use of threats or causing a telephone to ring repeatedly to annoy the person called. Existing law prohibits a debt collector from obtaining an affirmation from a debtor of a consumer debt that has been discharged in bankruptcy,… More
(1)Existing state and federal law regulate the practice of debt collection. Existing state law prohibits a debt collector from engaging in specified conduct, including the use of threats or causing a telephone to ring repeatedly to annoy the person called. Existing law prohibits a debt collector from obtaining an affirmation from a debtor of a consumer debt that has been discharged in bankruptcy, without clearly and conspicuously disclosing to the debtor, in writing, the fact that the debtor is not legally obligated to make such affirmation.

This bill would enact the Fair Debt Buyers Practices Act, which would regulate the activities of a person or entity that has bought consumer debt and the circumstances in which the person may bring suit. The bill would prohibit a debt buyer, as defined, from making any written statement in an attempt to collect a consumer debt unless the debt buyer possesses information that the debt buyer is the sole owner of the specific debt at issue, the debt balance, as specified, and the name and address of the creditor at the time the debt was charged off, among other things. The bill would require the debt buyer to make certain documents available to the debtor, without charge, upon receipt of a request, within 15 days. The bill would require that a specified notice be included with the debt buyer’s first written communication with the debtor. The bill would require all settlement agreements between a debt buyer and a debtor to be documented in open court or otherwise in writing and would require a debt buyer who receives a payment on a debt to provide a receipt or statement containing certain information. The bill would prohibit a debt buyer from initiating a suit to collect a debt if the statute of limitations on the cause of action has expired. The bill would prescribe penalties for each violation of the act and would provide that its provisions may not be waived. The bill would require a debt buyer bringing an action on consumer debt to include certain information in his or her complaint. The bill would prohibit an entry of judgment in favor of a plaintiff debt buyer unless business records authenticated through a sworn declaration and relating to the debt and ownership of it, among other things, are submitted by the debt buyer to the court, and would permit a court to dismiss a debt buyer’s action to collect with prejudice if this information is not provided or if the debt buyer fails to appear or is not prepared on the date scheduled for trial.

(2)Existing law establishes a process for the enforcement of money judgments and requires a levying officer to provide certain documents and information to a judgment debtor and to a designated employer in connection with wage garnishment. Existing law permits a process server also to serve an earnings withholding order on an employer and requires that the process server also serve certain documents at this time. Existing law requires an employer who is served with an earnings withholding order to provide certain documents to an employee who is a judgment debtor.

This bill would require, in the circumstances described above, that a copy of the form that the judgment debtor may use to make a claim of exemption and a copy of the form used to provide a financial statement also be provided. Hide
 
Status:
The bill was voted on by an Assembly committee on July 2, 2012. 
Senate Vote: On Passage

PASSED on January 31, 2012.

voted YES: 22 voted NO: 14
4 voted present/not voting

Other Votes:

An Act to Add Title 1.6C.5 (Commencing with Section 1788.50) to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, and to Amend Sections 700.010, 706.103, 706.104, 706.108, and 706.122 Of, and to Add Section 581.5 To, the Code of Civil Procedure, Relating to Debt Buyers.

SB 890 — 2011-2012 Legislature

Summary
(1)Existing state and federal law regulate the practice of debt collection. Existing state law prohibits a debt collector from engaging in specified conduct, including the use of threats or causing a telephone to ring repeatedly to annoy the person called. Existing law prohibits a debt collector from obtaining an affirmation from a debtor of a consumer debt that has been discharged in bankruptcy, without clearly and conspicuously disclosing to the debtor, in writing, the fact that the debtor is not legally obligated to make such affirmation.

This bill would enact the Fair Debt Buyers Practices Act, which would regulate the activities of a person or entity that has bought consumer debt and the circumstances in which the person may bring suit. The bill would prohibit a debt buyer, as defined, from making any written statement in an attempt to collect a consumer debt unless the debt buyer possesses information that the debt buyer is the sole owner of the specific debt at issue, the debt balance, as specified, and the name and address of the creditor at the time the debt was charged off, among other things. The bill would require the debt buyer to make certain documents… More
(1)Existing state and federal law regulate the practice of debt collection. Existing state law prohibits a debt collector from engaging in specified conduct, including the use of threats or causing a telephone to ring repeatedly to annoy the person called. Existing law prohibits a debt collector from obtaining an affirmation from a debtor of a consumer debt that has been discharged in bankruptcy, without clearly and conspicuously disclosing to the debtor, in writing, the fact that the debtor is not legally obligated to make such affirmation.

This bill would enact the Fair Debt Buyers Practices Act, which would regulate the activities of a person or entity that has bought consumer debt and the circumstances in which the person may bring suit. The bill would prohibit a debt buyer, as defined, from making any written statement in an attempt to collect a consumer debt unless the debt buyer possesses information that the debt buyer is the sole owner of the specific debt at issue, the debt balance, as specified, and the name and address of the creditor at the time the debt was charged off, among other things. The bill would require the debt buyer to make certain documents available to the debtor, without charge, upon receipt of a request, within 15 days. The bill would require that a specified notice be included with the debt buyer’s first written communication with the debtor. The bill would require all settlement agreements between a debt buyer and a debtor to be documented in open court or otherwise in writing and would require a debt buyer who receives a payment on a debt to provide a receipt or statement containing certain information. The bill would prohibit a debt buyer from initiating a suit to collect a debt if the statute of limitations on the cause of action has expired. The bill would prescribe penalties for each violation of the act and would provide that its provisions may not be waived. The bill would require a debt buyer bringing an action on consumer debt to include certain information in his or her complaint. The bill would prohibit an entry of judgment in favor of a plaintiff debt buyer unless business records authenticated through a sworn declaration and relating to the debt and ownership of it, among other things, are submitted by the debt buyer to the court, and would permit a court to dismiss a debt buyer’s action to collect with prejudice if this information is not provided or if the debt buyer fails to appear or is not prepared on the date scheduled for trial.

(2)Existing law establishes a process for the enforcement of money judgments and requires a levying officer to provide certain documents and information to a judgment debtor and to a designated employer in connection with wage garnishment. Existing law permits a process server also to serve an earnings withholding order on an employer and requires that the process server also serve certain documents at this time. Existing law requires an employer who is served with an earnings withholding order to provide certain documents to an employee who is a judgment debtor.

This bill would require, in the circumstances described above, that a copy of the form that the judgment debtor may use to make a claim of exemption and a copy of the form used to provide a financial statement also be provided. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Add Title 1.6C.5 (Commencing with Section 1788.50) to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, and to Amend Sections 700.010, 706.103, 706.104, 706.108, and 706.122 Of, and to Add Section 581.5 To, the Code of Civil Procedure, Relating to Debt Buyers.
Author(s)
Mark Leno
Co-Authors
Subjects
  • Debt buyers
Major Actions
Introduced2/18/2011
Referred to Committee
Passed Senate Committee on Judiciary5/10/2011
Passed Senate1/31/2012
Passed Assembly Committee on Judiciary6/26/2012
Failed passage in Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance7/02/2012
Passed Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance7/02/2012
Bill History
Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
select this voteSenate Committee on JudiciaryDo pass as amended.5/10/2011This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Judiciary
3 voted YES 2 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
currently selectedSenateSenate 3rd Reading SB890 Leno1/31/2012This bill PASSED the Senate
22 voted YES 14 voted NO 4 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssembly Committee on JudiciaryDo pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Banking and Finance.6/26/2012This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Judiciary
7 voted YES 1 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssembly Committee on Banking and FinanceDo pass as amended.7/02/2012This motion DID NOT PASS the Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance
3 voted YES 3 voted NO 6 voted present/not voting
select this voteAssembly Committee on Banking and FinanceSet first hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted.7/02/2012This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance
11 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
ActionDateDescription
Introduced2/18/2011
2/18/2011Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
2/20/2011From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 22.
3/10/2011Referred to Com. on RLS.
3/24/2011From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
3/31/2011Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
4/29/2011Set for hearing May 10.
select this voteVote5/10/2011Do pass as amended.
5/16/2011From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 3. Noes 2. Page 951.) (May 10).
5/17/2011Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
5/27/2011Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
5/31/2011Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
6/02/2011Ordered to inactive file on request of Senator Leno.
1/26/2012From inactive file. Ordered to second reading.
1/30/2012Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
1/31/2012Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 22. Noes 14. Page 2745.) Ordered to the Assembly.
1/31/2012In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
currently selectedSenate Vote on Passage1/31/2012Senate 3rd Reading SB890 Leno
6/15/2012Referred to Coms. on JUD. and B. & F.
6/18/2012From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
select this voteVote6/26/2012Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Banking and Finance.
6/26/2012From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on B. & F. (Ayes 7. Noes 1.) (June 26).
6/27/2012Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.
select this voteVote7/02/2012Do pass as amended.
select this voteVote7/02/2012Set first hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted.
7/02/2012Set, first hearing. Failed passage in committee. Reconsideration granted.

Total contributions given to Senators from interest groups that…

17 Organizations Supported and 2 Opposed; See Which Ones

Organizations that took a position on
An Act to Add Title 1.6C.5 (Commencing with Section 1788.50) to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, and to Amend Sections 700.010, 706.103, 706.104, 706.108, and 706.122 Of, and to Add Section 581.5 To, the Code of Civil Procedure, Relating to Debt Buyers.: Senate 3rd Reading SB890 Leno

17 organizations supported this bill

Alexander Community Law Center
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Consumer Affairs Association
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Labor Federation
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California Reinvestment Coalition
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
California State Attorney General
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
CALPIRG
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Consumer Federation of California
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Consumers Union
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
East Bay Community Law Center
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Housing and Economic Rights Advocates
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Professor Scott Maurer, Santa Clara University School Of Law
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Public Counsel
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Public Law Center
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Service Employees International Union
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.

2 organizations opposed this bill

California Bankers Association
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.
Civil Justice Association of California
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (2012, June 29). Assembly Committee Analysis. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from Leginfo: Bill Analysis.

Need proof?

View citations of support and opposition

Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Senators in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2012.
Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

Contributions by Legislator

Namesort iconPartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
That Supported
$ From Interest Groups
That Opposed
Vote
Elaine AlquistDCA-13$1,750$0
Joel AndersonRCA-36$15,125$12,700
Tom BerryhillRCA-14$0$9,750
Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
Ron CalderonDCA-30$9,400$8,030
Anthony CannellaRCA-12$0$12,000
Ellen CorbettDCA-10$18,800$0
Lou CorreaDCA-34$26,300$8,900
Kevin De LeonDCA-22$45,899$8,000
Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$35,180$4,000
Bob DuttonRCA-31$5,600$3,500
Bill EmmersonRCA-37$2,100$4,000
Noreen EvansDCA-2$28,820$4,900
Jean FullerRCA-18$3,000$10,000
Ted GainesRCA-1$4,000$27,700
Loni HancockDCA-9$68,450$0
Tom HarmanRCA-35$6,000$4,500
Ed HernandezDCA-24$33,249$13,400
Bob HuffRCA-29$2,000$16,402
Christine KehoeDCA-39$5,300$2,000
Doug La MalfaRCA-4$0$0
Mark LenoDCA-3$42,250$1,250
Ted LieuDCA-28$65,600$11,475
Carol LiuDCA-21$9,900$5,150
Alan LowenthalDCA-27$0$0
Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$13,400$11,375
Alex PadillaDCA-20$19,700$11,130
Fran PavleyDCA-23$89,100$0
Curren PriceDCA-26$16,700$16,800
Michael RubioDCA-16$21,100$11,292
Sharon RunnerRCA-17$0$1,000
Joe SimitianDCA-11$5,500$1,000
Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$103,800$6,800
Tony StricklandRCA-19$6,500$8,800
Juan VargasDCA-40$57,200$16,779
Mimi WaltersRCA-33$1,000$19,700
Lois WolkDCA-5$17,266$1,500
Rod WrightDCA-25$18,500$14,627
Mark WylandRCA-38$1,000$3,000
Leland YeeDCA-8$40,200$7,700

Add Data Filters:

Legislator Filters
Legislator Filters
Show All
NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
That Supported
$ From Interest Groups
That Opposed
Vote
Elaine AlquistDCA-13$1,750$0
Joel AndersonRCA-36$15,125$12,700
Tom BerryhillRCA-14$0$9,750
Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
Ron CalderonDCA-30$9,400$8,030
Anthony CannellaRCA-12$0$12,000
Ellen CorbettDCA-10$18,800$0
Lou CorreaDCA-34$26,300$8,900
Kevin De LeonDCA-22$45,899$8,000
Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$35,180$4,000
Bob DuttonRCA-31$5,600$3,500
Bill EmmersonRCA-37$2,100$4,000
Noreen EvansDCA-2$28,820$4,900
Jean FullerRCA-18$3,000$10,000
Ted GainesRCA-1$4,000$27,700
Loni HancockDCA-9$68,450$0
Tom HarmanRCA-35$6,000$4,500
Ed HernandezDCA-24$33,249$13,400
Bob HuffRCA-29$2,000$16,402
Christine KehoeDCA-39$5,300$2,000
Doug La MalfaRCA-4$0$0
Mark LenoDCA-3$42,250$1,250
Ted LieuDCA-28$65,600$11,475
Carol LiuDCA-21$9,900$5,150
Alan LowenthalDCA-27$0$0
Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$13,400$11,375
Alex PadillaDCA-20$19,700$11,130
Fran PavleyDCA-23$89,100$0
Curren PriceDCA-26$16,700$16,800
Michael RubioDCA-16$21,100$11,292
Sharon RunnerRCA-17$0$1,000
Joe SimitianDCA-11$5,500$1,000
Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$103,800$6,800
Tony StricklandRCA-19$6,500$8,800
Juan VargasDCA-40$57,200$16,779
Mimi WaltersRCA-33$1,000$19,700
Lois WolkDCA-5$17,266$1,500
Rod WrightDCA-25$18,500$14,627
Mark WylandRCA-38$1,000$3,000
Leland YeeDCA-8$40,200$7,700

Interest Groups that supported this bill

$ Donated
State & local government employee unions$707,723
Labor unions$72,150
Health & welfare policy$41,716
Minority & ethnic groups$14,000
Public official (elected or appointed)$4,100
Human rights$0
Consumer groups$0
Commercial service unions$0

Interest Groups that opposed this bill

$ Donated
Commercial banks & bank holding companies$268,058
Pro-business organizations$31,102
Loading…
Date Range of Contributions
Enter a custom date range