HB 999: Magistrate courts; collecting sums and fees authorized by law; revise provisions

In plain language

What the bill does

Who it affects

Why it matters

Key provisions

From the bill

Discussed in meetings (15)

The House and Senate meetings that took this bill up, from their machine transcripts. Each account was written by Georgia Commons with AI and is not part of the record; the video is what was said.

1. House Judiciary Committee, January 27, 2026

   From 0:35:17 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the bill would clarify that local legislation can authorize additional magistrate court fees, such as technology fees, and preserve fees already authorized that way. The sponsor said a district magistrate court requested the change to cover technology costs through court users rather than county taxpayers. A representative of the Council of Magistrate Court Judges supported the bill and emphasized that it would not itself authorize any particular fee. Local delegations would still work with judges and county commissions. The sponsor also explained that the bill corrects a repeal provision in earlier legislation so that nonpartisan magistrate elections would not be undone if voters reject the constitutional amendment for nonpartisan probate elections. Asked exactly where that correction appeared, the sponsor identified language limiting the repeal to section four of the earlier act. The committee approved the bill by voice vote, with no opposition heard.

2. House Rules Committee, February 2, 2026

   From 0:54:15 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the 2026 House Journal, p. 213

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HB 999 would allow magistrate courts to assess or collect additional fees when authorized by a local law passed by the General Assembly. The sponsor also described correcting language in earlier legislation on nonpartisan judicial elections. According to the sponsor, that language could repeal the entire earlier law if voters rejected the probate-judge referendum, rather than repeal only the probate-judge section as intended. No substantive questions followed. The committee later placed the bill on Tuesday’s floor calendar without objection.

3. House floor session, February 3, 2026 (legislative day 11)

   From 1:30:07 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the 2026 House Journal, p. 217

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HB 999 would allow magistrate courts to collect additional fees when authorized by a local act of the General Assembly. The sponsor said some courts already collected such fees, but legislative counsel had questioned their legal authority. The sponsor argued that technology fees could fund court needs through court users rather than county taxpayers. The sponsor also described a correction to earlier legislation on nonpartisan judicial elections. According to the sponsor, that legislation mistakenly made the magistrate provisions, as well as the probate provisions, subject to repeal if voters rejected a constitutional change concerning probate judges. The sponsor said this bill would limit that repeal provision to the probate portions. A member asked whether the fees were connected to a separate court program some judges opposed. The sponsor said they were not and described the proposal as addressing magistrate court technology and document needs. The House passed the bill 160 to 4.

4. Senate Judiciary Committee, March 9, 2026

   From 1:00:12 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HB 999 would allow magistrate courts to collect additional fees, such as technology fees, when authorized through local legislation. The sponsor said legislative counsel had concluded that current wording could prevent those local acts from taking effect, including acts already passed. Courts would still need a local act rather than imposing fees themselves. The sponsor also described a correction to an earlier election law: failure of a referendum on nonpartisan probate judge elections should repeal only the probate provision, not also undo nonpartisan magistrate elections. Asked about a referenced fee statute, the sponsor identified it as covering alternative dispute resolution fees and said the wording followed the probate court fee statute. The committee unanimously approved the bill.

5. Senate Rules Committee, March 12, 2026

   From 0:18:15 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HB 999 would allow magistrate courts to collect additional fees authorized by local legislation. The sponsor said a judge's request for a technology fee prompted the proposal, after legislative counsel advised that current law did not provide for such additional fees, despite their use in some courts. The sponsor also described a correction to an earlier judicial-election law: a repeal provision had been drafted to repeal the whole law rather than only its probate-judge section. The sponsor said the bill would correct that drafting problem. There were no substantive questions or vote.

6. Senate Rules Committee, March 16, 2026

   From 0:28:02 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor requested favorable consideration of HB 999, identifying it as a magistrate court bill already presented previously. No details of its provisions were explained in this meeting. A committee member later selected it for the next day's floor calendar, which the committee approved unanimously.

7. Senate floor session, March 18, 2026 (legislative day 33)

   From 4:59:49 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (Senate Third Read)

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HB 999 would confirm that local legislation may establish magistrate court technology fees and correct an error that could unintentionally repeal last year's nonpartisan magistrate election law. A senator identified a misspelled legal term, and the Senate adopted a spelling correction. Another amendment proposed increasing the small claims limit from $15,000 to $30,000. Its presenter said the limit had not changed since 1998 and that the increase would help people avoid legal fees. The chair initially ruled it unrelated under the bill's written title; a revised amendment added language to the title. An opponent objected to the late change, citing judges' opposition, lack of standard pretrial information-gathering procedures, and jury-trial concerns, especially for claims exceeding $25,000 in required auto insurance coverage. The Judiciary chair responded that parties could appeal for a new hearing in state or superior court with a jury and fuller preparation procedures, and could still subpoena documents and witnesses in magistrate court. Supporters argued that legal fees make some claims uneconomical. The Senate adopted the revised limit amendment 44-6 and passed the amended bill 46-4.

8. House floor session, March 23, 2026 (legislative day 36, PM)

   From 1:08:59 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (House Agreed Senate Amend or Sub As Amended)

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HB 999 would allow magistrate courts to collect additional fees authorized by local laws and correct repeal language concerning nonpartisan magistrate and probate court elections. The sponsor explained that the Senate added an increase in the courts' monetary jurisdiction from $15,000 to $30,000. The proposed House amendment would instead raise it to $25,000 and delay the increase until January. The sponsor said magistrate judges requested the delay and supported the revised amount, along with defense attorneys and other groups. Members asked which documents controlled and whether the vote concerned $25,000 or $30,000. The sponsor confirmed $25,000. Asked how that amount was chosen, the sponsor called it a more gradual increase and linked it to minimum insurance limits. The chair declared the House amendment adopted, then the House agreed to the Senate amendment as amended by the House, 167 to 0.

9. Senate floor session, April 2, 2026 (legislative day 40, part 1)

   From 7:57:52 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (Senate Agreed House Amend or Sub)

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HB 999 concerned magistrate-court fees and had previously been amended to raise the court's monetary jurisdiction from $15,000 to $30,000. The sponsor described a compromise with the House setting the limit at $25,000 instead. The clerk also read technical corrections, including a spelling correction and changes related to an earlier act's repeal language. No substantive questions or opposition followed. The Senate agreed to the House amendment to the Senate amendment, 48 to 1.

• Read aloud: House floor session, January 16, 2026 (legislative day 5), 0:55:40
• Read aloud: House floor session, January 27, 2026 (legislative day 7), 0:41:32
• Read aloud: House floor session, January 28, 2026 (legislative day 8), 0:48:57
• Read aloud: Senate floor session, February 4, 2026 (legislative day 12), 0:24:43
• Read aloud: Senate floor session, March 10, 2026 (legislative day 30), 0:24:15
• Read aloud: Senate floor session, March 12, 2026 (legislative day 31), 0:27:40

Status timeline

Sponsors

Votes

Topics