Comité Judiciary de la Cámara de Representantes, 4 de marzo de 2026

Transcripción

304 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.

1. 0:00:00

   All

2. 0:20:55

   right. Let us pray. Dear Lord, we thank you for this day. We pray for, uh, endurance and focus and priorities, uh, today, tomorrow and Friday as we approach crossover day. Pray for your blessings on these proceedings. In Christ's name, amen.

3. 0:21:09

   Amen. All right, let's see which one we wanna go first.

4. 0:21:17

   This first.

5. 0:21:20

   Fourteen seventy-three.

6. 0:21:23

   Or five.

7. 0:21:23

   Or five. I don't have my glasses on. Hang on.

8. 0:21:30

   He's probably got seven thirty.

9. 0:21:35

   Which-

10. 0:21:36

    Uh, uh, well, actually, Mr. Chairman, I think-

11. 0:21:39

    Fifteen- Fifteen works. Yeah.

12. 0:21:42

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman for, uh, scheduling this bill and put it here today. Fourteen seventy-five is, uh, usually kind of a, a last minute effort on my part for an issue I just learned about a few weeks ago that apparently, uh, at least in one appeal, and perhaps in some other Medicaid appeals that are pending before this department, the department's taking the position that if an authorized representative, uh, is appointed, then, then that process apparently is not a terribly formal one.

13. 0:22:15

    This is someone who can-- Basically you get-- The scenario is you've got someone who is in, often in a nursing home, and they're trying to get public benefits, Medicaid, or they're trying to get in nursing home benefits. And obviously if, if they're in a nursing home, oftentimes they're not capable of handling, you know, of living on their own. So, uh, uh, an authorized representative could be appointed, and that's not necessarily a terribly formal process. Uh, uh, I think federal law generally describes that the states provide some means for that happening, and I, I don't believe it's terribly formal.

14. 0:22:50

    But if the, if the pa-- who is the patient effectively, the principal dies, there's a very common principle in law that usually an, an agency terminates upon death of the principal. Uh, the only exception I'm aware of is in a advanced directive for healthcare. If you designate someone to have, uh, to be authorized to, to direct the disposition of your remains, that agency does survive death. That's, that's the only one I'm aware of.

15. 0:23:21

    And so I think the department is legally correct, and, and they've taken the position at least in one of these cases, if the principal, the principal dies, that is in this case the person who, who needs the Medicaid benefit, then the agency dies and the authorized representative no longer has any authority to prosecute the appeal and then the family would have to get a personal representative appointed. So an administrator if there's no will or an executor if there is a will. And of course these cases are usually ones where someone is try-- is arguably eligible for Medicaid.

16. 0:23:56

    They don't have a lot of money. There's not a lot of money in the estate and there, there just isn't money to spend on getting an administrator or an executor appointed. So it effectively will end the appeal for the, for the family. And that, that's bad for the family. It also could be bad for the facility where the patient is because they're relying upon that payment and Medicaid eligibility to be paid. So I, I did not feel like that was good policy. Um, I, I have admittedly have not talked with the attorney in the department or the department about the reasons for that argument.

17. 0:24:30

    Uh, again, I, I think it is legally sound. I just didn't think it was, it was good policy because I, I feel like once there's an appointment that should survive death so that whoever is acting for the, the potential recipient can, can just continue the appeal to its end.

18. 0:24:47

    Mm-hmm.

19. 0:24:47

    So that's what we're trying to do in this bill. So we, we've made some, uh, revisions, uh, Mr. Chairman, to the, uh, uh, sections dealing with powers of attorney and, and advanced directives. And then we've also tweaked the section in the Administrative Procedures Act that governs just general administrative hearings. And we've added a paragraph just saying if, if, if someone has been, um, you know, appointed there, uh, either by a formal document or just by some other means, their authority to prosecute that appeal continues with death.

20. 0:25:23

    And we've also provided that if you name somebody in one of the other written instruments like a power of attorney or advanced directive, that authority also would continue past death with respect to handling an appeal for some kind of government benefit. So, um, I do have, um, I don't know if it formally is-- could be called a substitute. I do have another version, um, that I had asked to be put in the folders that is the one I would like to utilize, although I, I would like to request some additional amendments at the back.

21. 0:25:55

    What's the LC you have on that?

22. 0:25:56

    The LC of the, of the newer version is LC forty-nine twenty-seven seven two.

23. 0:26:00

    Twenty-two.

24. 0:26:01

    And I sent an email back to Brock in the hour as we were wrapping up on the floor, uh, and appreciate him accommodating me by getting that out in the folders this morning. So, um-

25. 0:26:12

    Got it.

26. 0:26:13

    And I do have changes in the back, Mr. Chairman, so I thought I'd like to

27. 0:26:17

    Okay, let's do it. Anything else you want to say?

28. 0:26:21

    No, no, that's, that, that-

29. 0:26:22

    Okay

30. 0:26:22

    ... that just introduces the bill, and I, I'll, at the appropriate time, I'll discuss those.

31. 0:26:25

    All right. Questions to the author?

32. 0:26:31

    Representative Holcomb.

33. 0:26:32

    Thank, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm familiar with this. I had a case once where, um, it was brought on behalf of a deceased via the power of attorney, and i- it's very clear both in our statutes and kind of across the country that powers of attorney, uh, terminate, uh, upon the dis- the death of the principal, as you stated. So it looks to me, like, looking at that code section, that this would be the only exception that we would have to that general rule. And are there any risks o- of doing this, just to make sure that we're very, very clear on it?

34. 0:27:05

    Uh, in all honesty, I don't know. There, there may be. Uh, I don't know. Uh, Ms. Quick is here, and she may, may be able to advise us if there are some risks of this or more reasons we shouldn't do it. But I, I'm not aware of any. I, I suppose I feel that the greater risk is putting someone in that position where their, their appeal just terminates because they, they didn't live long enough. Um, but that, that's a valid question.

35. 0:27:26

    Right. And the-

36. 0:27:27

    No, no

37. 0:27:27

    ... which is fair. And then if, if the individual died, then the d- uh, state would have to pick up the case if possible, correct?

38. 0:27:35

    Yes.

39. 0:27:36

    Okay.

40. 0:27:36

    And the, the issue there is, you, you know, the only way I think an s- I mean, you could arguably provide that an heir could continue the case, but sometimes, uh, the representative may not be an heir, and so that's why I just was trying to say, if you, if you, if you're handling the case, you can continue doing it.

41. 0:27:53

    Okay.

42. 0:27:53

    Um, I'm not addressing an issue of if you, if you haven't started a case, um, you know, how, c- can, can someone act as an authorized representative? That, to me, was a more complicated issue. It may be something, if the bill keeps moving, we would try to address with some input. But right now, it's just if, if you've got one, they continue to have, uh, authority even after the death of the person they're acting on behalf of.

43. 0:28:19

    That makes sense. And if, and if the termination is based on s- the statutory provision, then it seems like we can create this exception of it.

44. 0:28:27

    That, that-

45. 0:28:28

    Yeah

46. 0:28:28

    ... that's my belief. And I'll say to, to, to one, one thing you said, the only other time we do this, as I mentioned, is I think, uh, uh, within the advanced directive document, which is a statutory document, um, there is a provision in there for appointing someone to, uh, handle the, or to have authority to direct the means of having, of the disposition of your remains-

47. 0:28:51

    Mm-hmm

48. 0:28:52

    ... which, um, sounds so morbidly clinical, but that's, that's kind of what it does. And that does survive death, obviously, because you can't be buried before that happens, or you shouldn't be, in, in an ideal world anyway.

49. 0:29:03

    Thank you.

50. 0:29:04

    You bet.

51. 0:29:05

    Okay. All right. I don't see any other questions. Uh, Ms. Quick, you want to come up?

52. 0:29:20

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

53. 0:29:21

    Good morning.

54. 0:29:21

    Members of the committee. Um, it's all my fault we're here talking about this. So I thought I would come over and try to explain and answer questions. I don't know if the, uh, materials that I brought with me have made it into the folders yet.

55. 0:29:35

    Yeah.

56. 0:29:35

    But I did bring the decision so that everyone could, uh, see, um, the reasoning, uh, of the administrative law judge in terms of doing this. I think, um, Chairman Leverett has sort of laid that out. It's not the only case. Uh, there are others. Um, and, um, just by way of background, the Department of Human Services is handling this, and I'm here instead of DCH because a couple of years ago, they turned over the eligibility fair hearings to us.

57. 0:30:08

    Uh, didn't get any additional funding for that. But my office has ...

58. 0:30:12

    You're welcome

59. 0:30:13

    ... my of- my office has handled that since then. So we have tightened up many things in terms of ensuring that the law is followed by folks who are operating in the, um, public benefit space, because in particular, with the aged, blind, and disabled population, with the ABD population, this is a very vulnerable population. So we do scrutinize these, um, authorized representative designations. And just you'll hear me say AREP, because that's what it is.

60. 0:30:45

    It can be a very informal designation, as Chairman Leverett has said. It's in the actual application, if you've ever seen those come up in, in exhibits, that the applicant can name their AREP. And so, um, when I first heard, um, the folks who, uh, were involved in this case were talking about trying to, uh, address the, uh, termination of the AREP designation, uh, by death, I thought that they were narrowly, trying to narrowly focus that to simply, uh, providing that the AREP designation itself that the applicant had made would survive death.

61. 0:31:31

    And that, that is, I don't think, what at least the bill as it was, um, um, dropped does. I think it's broader than that. And I wanted just to call, call it to your attention and, and, and maybe it's your decision to make. And, and let me be clear, the department is going to follow the law as the general assembly makes it. Um, and so, uh, I just want to make sure we all know what we're doing here. So I want to start with section two be- and put on a little different hat. In a former life, I was county administrator for Judge Tate in Athens for five years.

62. 0:32:07

    And section two, at least, um, I think your section two, you may be looking at a sub, but section two deals with the healthcare power of attorney Um, y- you all may remember when we, we did this, or that when the legislature did this, um, it... Th- this was to make it easier of course for others to assist folks in doing this healthcare power of attorney. So it is form-driven. So I will say to you, if this is something you're interested in, in doing, that 31-32-4 contains the form in the statute.

63. 0:32:45

    The form would also need to be, um, modified to reflect these changes if this is what you're doing. Okay, I'm put the other hat back on now, um, and talk about the department. Um, if the intent of this bill is to allow someone who has a power of attorney to appoint an ARAP, not in, in a new... Excuse me, to file a new application for Medicaid assistance after someone's death, that has some unintended consequences in it, um, different from the situation we're talking about where the application was pending at the time of the, of the, uh, applicant's death.

64. 0:33:34

    Because, um, I have put in your folder 49-4-147.1, this is a different... refers to a different department. This refers to DCH, but it's not free money when someone is getting Medicaid in the nursing home. It becomes, um, a, a claim against the estate. It becomes something... I don't handle this so I can't answer questions about it. DCH handles the estate recovery arm of recovering Medicaid benefits, and many of the applications that I see...

65. 0:34:13

    And by the way, um, I, I, I'm not making my people do this extra work and not doing it myself. I've handled these myse- myself, these fair hearings as this extra work has emerged. Um, but we, we see many times that people have a home and it's exempted from the eligibility analysis, so it doesn't count against them when they're then getting the Medicaid. But you better believe if they have a home, um, yes the nursing home is getting paid in the context of nursing home Medicaid, but every month potentially they are losing potentially equity in their home if they own their home if they're not doing the other Medicaid planning documents associated with, uh, uh, th- getting the public assistance.

66. 0:35:05

    And you can do those things, but the nursing homes are not doing that work for these individuals. They're not doing the QITs, the qualified income trust, or the other trust instruments that the federal government allows folks to do to protect their assets when they're getting Medicaid. So, uh, just be advised, if you are a- about to allow someone with a power of attorney to start that process anew, I've also put in your, um, folders, um, I think, um, the, uh, three pages from an application on a case that I tried.

67. 0:35:43

    Pardon my rudimentary, um, uh, redaction. I don't have the technological skills my open records officer has to redact things, so I did it old school for you. But you can see that in the application all of these disclosures are made to the applicant about what the effect is on their estate. And it goes on to even request the contact information if they have a will or trust so that communication can be made at the appropriate time by DCH to make the claim.

68. 0:36:21

    And so, um, all that to say, Mr. Chairman, um, I will work with Chairman Leverett to narrowly focus this, but I believe the language of the bill when you say authorizing the agent to appoint, appoint an authorized representative, you are clearly contemplating, this is lines 19, 20 and 21 in the original bill, lines 32 in the original bill, and again lines 44, 45 and 46 in the original bill.

69. 0:36:56

    When you are authorizing post-death the agent to appoint, to me that contemplates you're authorizing them to start the process, not to complete the pr- not to continue the process, but to, um, start the process anew. So all that to say, I'll stand for any questions if I can answer them, but just wanted to make sure everybody knew what I thought the bill might do.

70. 0:37:23

    All right. Any questions?

71. 0:37:27

    Mr. Chairman?

72. 0:37:29

    Yes, sir. Go ahead, you're up.

73. 0:37:31

    Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Quinton, for being here, and I, I apologize for not having discussed this issue with, with you in advance.

74. 0:37:36

    You were a little busy, Mr. Chairman.

75. 0:37:38

    Yes, I am.

76. 0:37:38

    It's all right.

77. 0:37:39

    Uh, and this kind of came up late in the session for me. So do you believe it would be more tightly focused and at least, I don't know if you'd say it would be better, it'd be less bad maybe if we provided just that the person, uh, designated as an agent could serve as the authorized representative rather than allowing them to appoint somebody?

78. 0:37:58

    Yes, sir.

79. 0:37:59

    Okay.

80. 0:38:00

    Or, or, um, y- you know, if we had all the time in the world, and we, we might-

81. 0:38:06

    We might

82. 0:38:06

    ... be able to work on this-

83. 0:38:07

    Yeah

84. 0:38:07

    ... if it moves. Uh, we could also w- look in Title 10 and maybe just statutorily recognize this ARAP for the, in, in government benefit context so that you don't mix apples and oranges and create a fruit salad by creating this one exception. ... for the power of attorney, 'cause I don't think the fiduciary law section, at least as of this weekend when I checked, had really looked at this. I know an email went out. Uh, Professor Radford was on the email that I saw.

85. 0:38:39

    And so, um, I don't know if you wanna create an exception to this longstanding rule or not, or just statutorily recognize the, the, uh, ARAP designation.

86. 0:38:48

    Well, and I, and I, I, I appreciate that. Would appreciate that collaboration. Um, certainly be willing to look at that. I did feel like it would be useful to address the, um, authority of an agent under one of the existing documents, um, be- because you do often have that degree of planning, and it would be useful if we could just clarify that kind of agency could continue. But certainly willing to have a conversation about the wisdom of that broadly.

87. 0:39:19

    W- well, and t- to your point, I mean, there also could be situations where an ARAP is not designated in the original application, and one would need to be designated. So, um, yes, sir.

88. 0:39:32

    Thank you. Thank you, Ms.

89. 0:39:36

    Sheriff.

90. 0:39:36

    All right, any other questions?

91. 0:39:41

    What's the will of the committee?

92. 0:39:47

    Move to pass.

93. 0:39:48

    Second. All right, got a motion and a second. Any further discussion, any amendments?

94. 0:39:54

    I do have some amendments, Mr. Chairman.

95. 0:39:57

    Oh. Yeah, and the LC that we're dealing with is LC492772.

96. 0:40:07

    Mr. Chairman Leverett, I got you-

97. 0:40:10

    Okay

98. 0:40:10

    ... lit up here.

99. 0:40:11

    All right. So, uh, based on, uh, Ms. Quitt's comments and also some, some comments I've received from, uh, an attorney who handles some of these cases and represents, uh, nursing, the nursing home industry, I'd like to propose a number of amendments.

100. 0:40:26

     All right.

101. 0:40:27

     Okay.

102. 0:40:27

     Amendment number one, what is that?

103. 0:40:29

     Well, uh, uh, I, I think it, um... What I might do, Mr. Chairman, is just describe what I'd like to do, and then we can determine how best to break it up, if that would be acceptable.

104. 0:40:38

     Okay. Remember, I only have an hour here, and I-

105. 0:40:41

     I know. I, well, I think I'll be pretty-

106. 0:40:42

     We're already halfway through that.

107. 0:40:44

     Okay. So my, my, my fault would be on lines 19 and 20 to strike the word appoint at the end of line 19 and insert in its place serve as.

108. 0:41:02

     If legislative council has a better idea, I'm certainly open to it. Um, and then again on line 20 after the word representative to insert, to the, comma, to the extent one was not previously appointed.

109. 0:41:19

     Say that one more time.

110. 0:41:21

     To the extent one was not previously appointed-

111. 0:41:25

     Okay

112. 0:41:25

     ... comma. And then I would make similar changes in section two. On line 31, change the word appoint to serve as, and then after the word representative insert comma to the extent one was not previously appointed.

113. 0:41:50

     And then on lines 43, 44, and 45 of LC492772 in section three,

114. 0:42:04

     to, um, toward the end of line 43, strike the word or that, that is right before a conservator. And then on the next line, 44, after the word title 29, put comma or an authorized representative for purposes of completing an application for public benefits on behalf of a party, comma. And then again, strike, uh, at the end of that line to appoint an authorized representative, it goes on 44 to 45, and just put, um, to serve as an authorized representative.

115. 0:42:43

     I'm sorry. We would strike to appoint and put, and replace that with serve as.

116. 0:42:55

     That it?

117. 0:42:56

     That's it.

118. 0:42:57

     All right. Any discussion?

119. 0:43:02

     Second.

120. 0:43:03

     Representative Hawk, my... Motion and a second on the amendment. Go ahead.

121. 0:43:07

     I, I do have a question. It's just about the 31-32-4, the form. Um, I know it would probably be difficult to tinker with that now. Maybe if this continues to move, you can-

122. 0:43:20

     That was, that was my f- my thought. And I, I, I don't know that I completely agree the form necessarily needs to be changed, but that's, I do think that is something that needs to be looked at.

123. 0:43:30

     Okay.

124. 0:43:30

     And I would be willing to consider that.

125. 0:43:32

     All right. Thank you.

126. 0:43:33

     Just right now I think that's gonna be tough to do.

127. 0:43:35

     Agreed.

128. 0:43:35

     Not everybody agrees-

129. 0:43:37

     Yeah

130. 0:43:37

     ... to the extent I haven't already done so.

131. 0:43:39

     We do have another chamber that can maybe make some-

132. 0:43:42

     That's, that's what I'm hoping to do.

133. 0:43:43

     Okay. All right.

134. 0:43:47

     If they read it.

135. 0:43:48

     Chairman, if it's amenable to the author also on line five, you, uh, just to be consistent, then line five, for the appointment should be replaced with to serve as. So for the appointment of should be replaced with to serve as.

136. 0:44:07

     Thank you.

137. 0:44:18

     All right. So any objection to adding in line five the changes in-

138. 0:44:24

     No

139. 0:44:24

     ... in your amendments?

140. 0:44:26

     No, no, I would-

141. 0:44:27

     Okay

142. 0:44:28

     I would m- move to amend my amendment.

143. 0:44:31

     Well, our, our, our, our motion was for the- ... amendment before we added that in, so that's why I'm asking. Okay. Yeah, no, I'm, I'm- All right, hear no objection, then we're adding that language in into part of the amendments. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the amendments, uh, as, uh, uh, given by Chairman Leverett, say I. I. Any opposed? All right, we have that amendment. Any further on the bill itself?

144. 0:45:02

     All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Okay, Bill- Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Got your bill. All right. Um, Ms. Hong, you have 1433?

145. 0:45:18

     Yes.

146. 0:45:19

     All right.

147. 0:45:20

     It's 11. Thank you, Chairman. I'm presenting this on behalf of Whit Barchett. Um, I have LC 49-2657.

148. 0:45:30

     I don't have that.

149. 0:45:30

     I don't have it.

150. 0:45:31

     It is being distributed currently.

151. 0:45:33

     There you go. Thank you.

152. 0:45:35

     This has to do with unauthorized practice of law. Currently, uh, we have a statute where if you're not a lawyer, you cannot practice law, and it is a, um, a criminal penalty. We are adding, um, and increasing the penalty to, uh, a felony, um, for one to three years. And for any corporation's, um, officer, trustee, director, agent of a corporation that, um, practices law, um, unauthorized practice of law would also be a felony, one to three years.

153. 0:46:14

     And for a second, two to 10 years. That is the bill. I'll take any questions.

154. 0:46:21

     Vice Chair Reeves. Um, as this moves along, um, I was made aware during the insurance committee, North Carolina and some other states have a good statute about conflict of interest of people who are assigned to represent, uh, insureds, uh, that I may present, um, as this goes along. I think it's something that would help, uh, get claims handled more fairly. Um, but, um, the- I don't have that with me today, and this looks like a good bill.

155. 0:46:56

     Sorry.

156. 0:47:00

     Leader Efstration.

157. 0:47:01

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative, for bringing the bill. I'm familiar with an issue, particularly in my home county, Gwinnett County, where populations that may not speak English as their first language are targeted by non-attorneys offered legal advice, um, engaging in unauthorized practice of law, and that there's been an issue in the past as I've spoken with prosecutors about, about the penalties being sufficient enough available by law to make prosecution of, of these cases, um, um, a good option. Is, is this bill gonna be helpful to help the residents of Gwinnett who may be otherwise victimized by unauthorized practice of law that, that I've heard about?

158. 0:47:39

     Yes, absolutely. I know firsthand, um, being Korean American and practicing law in Gwinnett County, I have clients that come to me all the time who do not speak English, um, who only speak Korean, and they later on, further into their case, realize the person that they were talking to at the law firm is actually not an attorney who has been giving legal advice, um, never talked to an attorney the entire time. And so I think this is an ongoing issue, and, um, we need to make sure that, uh, we let communities, um, know, especially those communities, but also have heavier penalties for those.

159. 0:48:26

     Yes. Th- th- thank you, Mr. Chairman. L- Leader Efstration's comments were helpful. I, I was wondering what the context is that's giving rise to this, and then 50,000 as the minimum penalty seems really high.

160. 0:48:41

     I think it's reasonable for, um, especially what we're talking about. Um, again, I, I, I hope that we all, as those who practice law, have high regards for what we do and, um, and there are many out there in our communities who present themselves as an attorney and are giving legal advice, and the people in our community are being disadvantaged by that. And so I believe that that is a, a good reasonable penalty.

161. 0:49:10

     Okay. Uh, so to make sure that I understand, these individuals are affirmatively representing themselves as attorneys, not just the unau- unauthorized practice of law where they might be giving advice, but not representing themselves as attorney?

162. 0:49:22

     A- as I know it, and I've heard from, uh, clients that have come to me from those, uh, law firms, they are presenting them as, themselves as an attorney and giving legal advice and, um, and presenting themselves from beginning to end of their c- the client's case as their attorney.

163. 0:49:44

     Okay. All right. Thank you.

164. 0:49:47

     My experience in, my experience in, uh, sentencing, um, I would award the 50,000 fine, but also, uh, give the restitution part of it. And restitution is priority over a fine, so if they serve out their time and haven't paid all 50,000, it goes away.

165. 0:50:18

     All right. Uh, any other questions? What's the will of the committee? Move to second.

166. 0:50:25

     Second.

167. 0:50:26

     All right. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? All right, the ayes have it. All right, moving along. Let's see. Next.

168. 0:50:46

     Uh, Representative Kelley, you have 1470.

169. 0:50:53

     I'm sorry, I haven't turned you on. Go ahead.

170. 0:50:55

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm actually going to be working off a substitute, uh, to House Bill 1470. It's LC 630140S. This issue was brought to me by Chairman Williamson, uh, after conversations with several of his constituents who operate web-based businesses. Uh, we have seen, uh, a rash of, um,

171. 0:51:24

     lawyers wanting to bring civil actions against people who operate largely web-based businesses, alleging that their websites are in violation of the ADA. Uh, and then they, um, file lawsuits against them, many of which are dismissed, uh, or dismissed, uh, on the merits. And, uh, however, it has caused, uh, chaos and turmoil in the, uh, usually small businesses' operation.

172. 0:51:59

     Uh, this was a concern that, uh, Chairman Williamson raised, uh, to me. He's had, uh, several individuals, uh, concerned with this. He got with, uh, the, uh, Metro Chamber of Commerce, uh, for some language, and also worked with the trial bar, and that's what's represented before you as compromised language, uh, in the sub, uh, before you, and that's what I'm here presenting today.

173. 0:52:29

     Okay. Vice Chair.

174. 0:52:32

     Don't Kansas and Missouri and some other states do this, something in this ballpark?

175. 0:52:38

     I know that's where, uh, we were looking to some other states for some guidance on this, and I couldn't name the exact ones, but I know that, that we were drawing inspiration from some others. I appreciate you shedding light on that.

176. 0:52:51

     Miss Westbrook.

177. 0:52:53

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for bringing the bill. I'm just trying to understand the fact pattern a little bit better. Is this a situation where people are visually impaired and therefore can't ... I mean, like, this is an entirely web-based business, and I'm just trying to think about what disabilities would be impacted.

178. 0:53:09

     Uh, there's nothing in here that would prevent a valid claim. I take that very serious. My grandmother was blind.

179. 0:53:16

     Uh-huh.

180. 0:53:17

     And, uh, but we are seeing there are law firms who are set up, have, who have set up a business practice of largely just targeting smaller web-based companies alleging this and, and trying to just hold them hostage on the offset that they will settle for small, uh, amounts just to get the lawsuit to go away versus-

181. 0:53:42

     Okay

182. 0:53:42

     ... actually bringing a legitimate, uh, claim. There's nothing in here which will pro- prohibit a legitimate claim under the ADA from being, being brought, and I would never want to do that.

183. 0:53:54

     Thank you.

184. 0:53:55

     Thank you for the clarification.

185. 0:54:01

     All right. Any other questions? What's the will of the committee?

186. 0:54:06

     Move to pass.

187. 0:54:07

     All right, motion on the second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.

188. 0:54:13

     Aye.

189. 0:54:13

     Any opposed? All right, bill passes. All right.

190. 0:54:22

     Let's see. Which

191. 0:54:27

     ... Okay, got her. All right, Representative Jenkins.

192. 0:54:34

     I need that.

193. 0:54:34

     And I need a motion to bring his bill off the table. This is House Bill 899.

194. 0:54:39

     So moved.

195. 0:54:41

     All right, got a motion and a second. All those in favor?

196. 0:54:45

     Aye.

197. 0:54:45

     All right.

198. 0:54:47

     Okay, so I'm Representative, uh, Jenkins, House District 136. Uh, today I come to present to you House Bill 899, uh, LC number, uh, 492771S. Uh, as I said, this was laid on the table, and we have a new version, um, since that time, and I'll explain the changes. Uh, you have some notes associated with this as well that kind of gives a summary of what we're doing here.

199. 0:55:17

     Um, basically, uh, I, I will not re-present the bill since we did that last time out of respect for time, but I'll, I'll talk about, uh, kind of what's happened since, uh, we last got together. Uh, this has been a collaborative effort, uh, with the, uh, we had the, uh, president of the fiduciary section of the bar in his, an individual capacity that's given support and, and input on this bill. Uh, the, um, the Georgia Real Estate Closing Attorneys, the Clerks of Courts, um, and the Georgia Realtors, and, um, there's probably some others that I've missed, but that's the high points.

200. 0:55:52

     But when we presented this at the last meeting, there were some, a lot of, uh, very serious concerns, primarily Atlanta Legal Aid and, and some other individual practitioners that expressed concern about the nine-month acceptance period, uh, contained in the or- original law. Uh, our, our effort was to refine the processes in the orig- original law and not to fundamentally change the original law, so we felt that was beyond the scope of what we set out to do. However, uh, with, with the concerns that they had, we went ahead and this latest LC version, or LC number, uh, does strike the nine-months acceptance period in accordance with their wishes.

201. 0:56:34

     And, um-

202. 0:56:35

     We will, um, we, we wanna proceed with this one, and, uh, we'll continue to, uh, work this through the Senate and all the way to the governor's desk. Um, we feel this is very important for the citizens of Georgia. These are some very important updates to this bill. And, and this, the, the transfer on death deed is a very powerful and a very wonderful tool that, um, that, that Georgians, uh, it's very popular with, with our, with our constituents. Um, I'm joined by LaShea Calloway with the Georgia Real Estate Closing Attorneys, and she is here for your, to answer your questions.

203. 0:57:09

     She's a subject matter expert and the primary author of the bill.

204. 0:57:11

     All right. Ms. Calloway, do you have anything you wanna add?

205. 0:57:13

     No. If you have any questions, let me know.

206. 0:57:16

     Okay. And just while Mr. Leffert's in the room here, I wanna make sure-

207. 0:57:20

     We're in support.

208. 0:57:21

     Y'all are in support. Okay. Representative Holcomb.

209. 0:57:25

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you just walk us through, like, the specific changes within the bill themselves, just so we can see them?

210. 0:57:32

     So-

211. 0:57:33

     Yeah

212. 0:57:33

     ... the specific thing that was changed from Monday-

213. 0:57:38

     Yes

214. 0:57:38

     ... Monday's bill, um, was just the nine-months acceptance period was removed, because that was the issue that was primarily raised. Um, and so we removed that from this one. There are other s- changes, um, briefly, we just... One of the biggest issues with the Georgia, with the clerks, and what was causing the issues with the people losing their homestead exemptions and people being unable, getting disqualified from being a first-time home buyer, was when you filed the PT-61, which is the transfer tax form.

215. 0:58:12

     And so that's the biggest thing that we changed with our edits, keeping, sticking with the fundamental same statute that we already have and, and, uh, that's passed. And so, um, the PT-61 form is now filed with the affidavit instead of the deed, which is what we normally do as practitioners. We fo- we file a PT-61 with a deed. That's what caused the issues, because that looks like the grantor has sold the property to the grantee, and that's why they were losing their homestead exemption.

216. 0:58:45

     So you have elderly people that were just trying to do a transfer on death deed to avoid probate, and now they ha- they find out when they receive their tax bill that they've lost their homestead exemption, they've lost their senior, um, citizen's, um, discount, and now they have to pay higher tax bills because of that, property tax bills, until they can go back and get it lowered in the following year. So those were more of the larger changes that we did, just to make things consistent throughout the statute that we already have.

217. 0:59:19

     All we did from changing on Monday was remove the nine-months acceptance period.

218. 0:59:24

     Okay. D- did you also coordinate with Ms. Vancecain or any of the others that had concerns? In other words, have they seen this draft?

219. 0:59:33

     Um, I, I'll be honest with you, I have not.

220. 0:59:35

     Okay. All right. Thank you.

221. 0:59:38

     Okay. Anybody in the audience that might wanna speak on this bill? Just checking. All right. Buddy, did I hear you say that the clerks are in favor of the sub?

222. 0:59:50

     They are.

223. 0:59:50

     I heard from several of them-

224. 0:59:52

     Yes

225. 0:59:52

     ... that they support the bill as amended.

226. 0:59:54

     That's right.

227. 0:59:54

     Thanks.

228. 0:59:54

     Yes. And we also, to make it easier for everyone, um, because attorneys are used to filing a PT-61 with a deed, we've already worked with the clerk's authority, and they've already updated... They're ready to update their system, um, with when you file a transfer on death deed, it will not allow you to file a PT-61. And then when you file the affidavit, it's a requirement for the PT-61 in the dropdown menus when everyone is filing. So it makes it really easy for people to not make the mistakes anymore.

229. 1:00:26

     And the clerk's authority has already a- approved that and is ready to go when it's at, to the extent it's enacted.

230. 1:00:34

     Representative Kelley.

231. 1:00:36

     So, I, I guess when you, uh, when you're filing it o- online, it'll just have a dropdown and you'll, then you'll have an area to upload an affidavit? Or how will that work?

232. 1:00:47

     Yes. So right now, with the clerk's authority at e-recording, you, there's a dropdown menu asking you what kind of document you're filing. So you'll either say a deed, and that will say, "Is this a tran... or deed, and then transfer on death deed." So it'll make it clear you know which one you're filing. And then when you continue down, it'll say affidavit, and then it'll say affidavit transfer on death deed, and then they will, it will require the PT-61. It's a, a warning that you'll receive when you try to file, and it'll say you're missing this PT-61 form.

233. 1:01:21

     Okay. All right. Thank you. Just trying to clear that up.

234. 1:01:24

     Mm-hmm.

235. 1:01:26

     Any other questions?

236. 1:01:27

     Mr. Chairman, I just want to

237. 1:01:31

     Yes.

238. 1:01:31

     Thank you. You've obviously put a lot of work in this, and I know, uh, Representative Jenkins has. C- could you just point me to the provision in the bill where it eliminates the affidavit requirement, I guess as of Jan- July 1?

239. 1:01:43

     So the... It doesn't eliminate the affidavit requirement. It removes the nine-months acceptance period. So the nine-months acceptance period, in the statute as it currently stands, it says that someone has to file an affidavit, um, within nine months of the grantor's death. And so now there, it's no longer in here, um, where it says that it has to be filed within nine months, um, of the record owner's death.

240. 1:02:07

     Okay. So the a- you still have to file... I- is the affidavit something that's filed after death to confirm that title is-

241. 1:02:14

     Correct

242. 1:02:15

     ... granted? Okay.

243. 1:02:15

     Yes.

244. 1:02:16

     So you still f- and, and that's pretty common practice in like-

245. 1:02:19

     Correct

246. 1:02:19

     ... there's a death, intestate, all the time.

247. 1:02:22

     Right.

248. 1:02:22

     You record an affidavit to show that, too. So, so there still is an affidavit requirement, there just isn't the acceptance period.

249. 1:02:27

     Correct.

250. 1:02:28

     Okay.

251. 1:02:28

     Yes.

252. 1:02:28

     Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

253. 1:02:30

     Okay.

254. 1:02:30

     Like you said, that is standard, um, the affidavit and a death certificate-

255. 1:02:34

     Okay

256. 1:02:34

     ... with everything else that we already do when it comes to someone passing away, especially if they die intestate. They need to file, um, an affidavit and a death certificate when they're handling the, uh, clo- when you're dealing with the closing process.

257. 1:02:48

     Okay. Great. Ms. Calloway, thank you. You've been very helpful and prepared coming in here.

258. 1:02:55

     Any other questions from the committee? What's the will of the committee? Move to pass. Second. Got a motion and a second. Representative Holcomb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just on discussion, I, I just want to say Ms. Mancini is, uh, Mancini is a constituent of mine, so I want to confer with her, so I'll be voting no. That doesn't, for now, that doesn't mean that I'll be voting no on the floor. I just want to have her to get a chance to. I really appreciate what you have done because the nine months was a big thing. There may be other issues, so I just want to confirm with her before. Roger.

259. 1:03:25

     So I appreciate that. I appreciate that. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right, uh, no further discussion. All those in favor of the bill say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. No. It was kind of a weak . Aw. All right, let's do a hand count. All those in favor, raise your right hand.

260. 1:03:48

     All those opposed. Okay. The ayes have it. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Chairman Cheokas.

261. 1:04:04

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, uh, at this late hour, I bring you House Bill 1360, and I'm gonna turn it over to Aaron Kapler to explain what's going on. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you very much. My name is Aaron Kapler. I represent Sumter County. I'm the county attorney for Bryan County, and I also represent several other jurisdictions in the defense of class action tax refund cases. Uh, we are working off of Substitute LC59-0396S with a slight amendment that was introduced this morning to add subsection H, that Chairman Cheokas, I believe, presented to Mr.

262. 1:04:48

     Chairman. Yeah. And that subsection H is really, I think, what I want to talk about and explain why that's so important. But before we talk about what the bill does, I find it's often important to talk about what the bill does not do, 'cause I think that provides a lot of clarity about the situation. So what HB 1360 does not do, it does not provide counties and cities a free pass to misuse taxpayer monies or to do anything improper.

263. 1:05:19

     It does not give counties and cities new rights to do things with taxpayer money. It doesn't substantively change the rules on how counties and cities assess taxes, levy assessments, or fees. It does none of that. Also importantly, it does not substantively change the rights of an aggrieved taxpayer to seek relief. It doesn't do that either. It does not affect the substantive rights of anybody, and I think that's important to start with.

264. 1:05:50

     So what does HB 1360 do, particularly with the amendment adding subsection H? It extends the wisdom of the General Assembly back in 2003 when OCGA 48-2-35 was amended to preclude class actions against the state for tax refunds. What this bill does is extends that same wisdom to counties and cities. Let me explain how that works.

265. 1:06:21

     There are essentially two tax refund statutes. There's 48-2-35, which is the state, and again, it already precludes class actions for tax refunds against the state. And there's 48-5-380, which is the tax refund statute for counties and cities. What was the first statute? I'm sorry. Yes, ma'am. The first statute is 48-2-35.

266. 1:06:48

     The language in the amendment of subsection H essentially mirrors the same language that is in 48-2-35. So we're really seeking to extend that same wisdom to counties and cities. Let me explain to you why I think it was so wise to preclude cla- sa- class actions against the state, and why it makes so much sense. In an ordinary class action that I think we're all familiar with, it's an aggrieved or injured party seeking a class against a private company, products liability, data breaches, things like that.

267. 1:07:24

     So the plaintiff is seeking to represent themselves and the other parties who have been injured against a private company. The payor of that settlement or the judgment is the company that caused the injury. For tax refunds, however, it's very different. Because in a class action, the class are the taxpayers. And in these cases against counties and cities, the class are the property owners in the county or the property owners in the city. Well, how does a county or a city raise monies to refund taxes?

268. 1:07:59

     Through the assessment of taxes. In fact, it is so true that the plaintiff's expert in the Bryan County case admitted that in order for Bryan County to refund the fire fees that had been collected for five years and used exclusively to fund fire protection, in order to refund those to the class, Bryan County would either have to issue a bond, which of course requires voter approval and paid back by taxpayers, or increase the millage rate.

269. 1:08:31

     So essentially, what you're doing with these class actions is you're taking $100 from your left pocket, the taxpayers, and giving it back to your right pocket. But there's one thing. It's not an even trade, because the lawyers are getting 40%. And the plaintiff class representative, the person who's the named plaintiff, they've negotiated a bounty for 2.5%. So the taxpayers are paying 100% of the refund, but they're getting back less than 60%, which is going to cause and will cause tax increases.

270. 1:09:12

     In fact, Evans County recently advertised a property tax increase because of these class actions. Now, I can talk to y'all for hours about this litigation. But I ain't going to.

271. 1:09:23

     You got, you got about two minutes.

272. 1:09:24

     Yes, sir. I wanna, I wanna talk to you what it's like to be a member of these classes, because I'm actually a property owner in a city that settled one of these cases. The notice went out on December 19th, the week before Christmas. I was on a Christmas vacation with my family. I received it on December 29th. Well, the deadline to object to that settlement was December 27th, two days before I received it, two days after Christmas, effectively giving me no meaningful opportunity to timely object.

273. 1:09:57

     Now, I'm a lawyer. I filed an untimely objection. That'll be dealt with with the court. But here's what we know. During that process, those lawyers were gonna get 40% of that settlement, $2 million. They worked less than 400 hours on that case. There was no motion to dismiss filed, no motion for summary judgment, no disputed class certification hearing, not even a deposition. Their effective hourly rate was over $6,000 an hour, paid for by the taxpayers.

274. 1:10:28

     So for the privilege of owning property in this jurisdiction, I get to have my taxes increase ad valorem to pay a settlement that I had nothing to do with. What HB 1360 does, as amended, it doesn't say these plaintiffs can't bring these claims. They can. They can certainly bring the claims. But what they can't do is make their neighbors join them and make their neighbors pay for them. So I urge the committee to con- seriously consider this bill, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

275. 1:10:57

     Okay, you have questions, and I picked the wrong area of practice.

276. 1:11:03

     Representative Kelley.

277. 1:11:05

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Property taxes and, and the taxes that, that governments levy on our small business owners, our farms, our senior citizens, that's been a big topic of conversation, uh, in this House. And we've worked really hard to make sure that local governments are not unjustly taxing individuals. And I know in my community, I practice law as, as, as well, um, we've seen over the last couple years some really big assessments come, come through.

278. 1:11:43

     And I've had individuals in my community come to me asking me to do their assessments. The problem I have is doing each of these one-off, and I'm not involved in any pro-taxpayer litigation, is the way I would, I would phrase it. But my problem with representing them against the tax assessors or the county is the fact that you're, you're arguing over maybe what may, may be $1,000 savings for someone. And if I have two or three hours in it, I get close to eating up, if I'm billing them by the hour, eating up what they'll recover.

279. 1:12:23

     And so w- it's effectively barring a- attorneys who wanna spend their time pursuing that claim. So I, I, I understand why a county lawyer would not want to have to defend cases against overzealous tax assessors or county commissioners, but I think what we have to look at here is there are real individuals who are, who are losing their businesses, losing their farms, who are ...

280. 1:12:55

     Because they have been unfairly assessed, and there's not gonna be a group of attorneys who are willing to bring those claims on their behalf if you keep them from being able to maximize the efficiency of a class action. That's my concern with, with what y'all are doing here today. I understand there's a need from our county governments to not, not be subject to this, but, but, you know, we heard it said a couple times yesterday, we're here to protect the taxpayer, not nec- not necessarily, you know, the, the, the county officials.

281. 1:13:28

     And, and that's what I, I struggle with here, Mr. Chairman.

282. 1:13:31

     Mm-hmm. Thank you. Vice Chair Reeves.

283. 1:13:34

     Mr. Kaplan, good to see you again. We did the reverse. You were in Gwinnett and went to Sumter. I w- I was in Sumter and went to Gwinnett. But, uh, Sumter County's got a great lawyer. Um, couple of questions, Mr. Chair, if I may. Um, d- you're saying existing Georgia law allows class actions for tax refunds?

284. 1:13:52

     The existing Georgia law allows tax class actions for tax refunds against counties and cities-

285. 1:13:57

     Okay

286. 1:13:57

     ... but not against the state.

287. 1:13:59

     Does existing Georgia law allow, uh, class actions on tax valuation appeals also?

288. 1:14:06

     Th- th- that would be an excellent question. I don't think it does, because that's an entirely different statute.

289. 1:14:11

     Okay.

290. 1:14:11

     And that's actually a good point, because those cases are often represented by counsel to bring those tax assessment challenges. And because it's really an administrative process, the ... You, you dispute your valuation. You can go before a hearing officer, the, a board of equalization or an arbitrator, and then you go to superior court.

291. 1:14:33

     Well, I think in the interest of efficiency, um, we might wanna look at, uh, class actions on the appeal, valuation appeal process. Now, refund, when a taxpayer is entitled to a refund, there's been a, an error by the government that has overtaxed a citizen, such as some software error that disregards an exemption or some other, uh, mistake by the government that has led to a citizen being overtaxed, right?

292. 1:14:58

     That's right.

293. 1:14:59

     All right. So, um, consolidation under 9-1142, that, that requires consent of both parties, right?

294. 1:15:06

     It does.

295. 1:15:06

     Under current law.

296. 1:15:07

     It does.

297. 1:15:08

     But there could be an exemption applied in tax appeals to allow those to be consolidated in addition to class actions, right?

298. 1:15:15

     Y- you absolutely could, and as a matter of fact, sometimes taxpayers do bring these with other taxpayers. In fact, the Homewood 2 case that the Georgia Supreme Court decided earlier, or late last year, was a multi-plaintiff case against Athens-Clarke County. So you can certainly bring multiple plaintiffs in a case, but that doesn't mean it's a class action, of course. It's an entirely different procedural vehicle. You wanna take over the meeting? Sure. Okay. All right. Those on rules, we gotta go. So I'm gonna turn it over to Vice Chair Reeves and- You got a, you got a request.

299. 1:15:51

     I'm sorry. Um, coup- I've got a couple more questions. Hang on. Well, let me spread it around. All right. Mr., uh, uh, Vice Chair Kelley. Well, I, Mr.- Actually, uh, Whip Burchett, you do have a question. Yeah. Um, is it possible for a, um, um, government, uh, county government to levy a fee that is upheld by the court? Certainly it's possible. And, and I think in most- So, uh, I'm sorry. I- And this is sort of rhetorical in nature. The, um, i- if it is possible, uh, that they, they do that, then why not just levy a fee that is in accordance with the test, um, um, that the court uses versus levying a fee that would be struck down by the court?

300. 1:16:36

     So that's an excellent question. And I think the answer actually goes to something similar what the prior bill talked about. Okay. These counties and cities that have settled these, they're not settling them because they feel like they did anything wrong. They're settling them because they're held hostage with the risk of the exposure. And smaller counties, Sumter County, and these other jurisdictions that have settled, they fear years of litigation and then a judgment that they cannot pay without increasing ad valorem taxes, which is what they do not wanna do.

301. 1:17:06

     Isn't the test fairly clear, though, you know, how to, uh, levy the fee so that it is a fee and not a tax? Well, I think it is clear. The problem is, is that there's not a lot of clear precedent. And so some of these fees are assessed through the special district paragraph, which says fees, taxes, and assessments can be assessed to fund local governmental services. I think that provides all the authority you need. But what these lawyers have done is they've taken a case that did not involve a special district's case, the Bell South case, and they apply it, and they say, "Well, any fee that doesn't match this test must be unconstitutional." That's the wrong...

302. 1:17:44

     I think that's the wrong legal analysis. That issue will be solved. What the procedural change of this does is says those issues be, get resolved on individualized basis, not amongst the entire community against the county. Didn't the co- the, the, I guess, the Georgia Supreme Court, didn't they just remand a stormwater, um, fee and said that it was actually a fee and not a tax? They did. The Homewood II case, they affirmed that a stormwater fee was a fee and not a tax. That's correct. All right. And how much did that cost to, to defend?

303. 1:18:15

     Um, I don't know. I know that was the second time those parties went to the Georgia Supreme Court, so I would have to assume an extraordinary amount. Mm-hmm. Thank you. Okay. Um, Representative Kelley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an important issue, both to our counties and to our taxpayers. And I know Chairman Parrish doesn't like us to, to be late, and there's a number of us who nee- who need to move to rules. So I would ask that we... I would move to table the measure. Second. Second.

304. 1:18:46

     Okay, I've got a motion and a second. Uh, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All right, it's tabled. Uh, I do have some time tomorrow. Okay. So I can, I can probably get it out then, but you'll need to come back tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you.