Brief⁽¹⁾

House Sub. for S.B. 306 deals with debt collection to provide the following:

• Writs of general execution, a means by which property can be seized to pay off debts, would provide due process to debtors. Debtors would be notified that: some nonexempt property may be seized; the debtor may file a claim for exempt property; and the debtor has a right to a hearing on an exempt property claim. New forms are provided. These provisions are from H.B. 2332.



• The manner in which garnishment cases are filed and responded to is changed and existing forms that are used in Chapter 61 (limited action) cases are modified. The bill would require that a garnishee file an answer with the court concerning garnishment of a defendant's wages. A garnishee would be required to disclose the last known address of a defendant. If a garnishee holds property or funds belonging to a defendant, the clerk of the court must mail to the defendant the notice provisions, which include a brief description of the garnishment order that has been issued, a statement of the defendant's right to make a claim of exemption to the property garnished, and the defendant's right to a hearing. A defendant would have to file any claim for exemption to the property garnished within ten days. If an exemption hearing were held, the defendant would have the burden of proof to show that certain property should be exempt from the garnishment order. These provisions are similar to H.B. 2428.



• The garnishee also must file an answer concerning the garnishment of a defendant and disclose the last known address of the defendant in Chapter 60 garnishment cases. If a garnishee holds funds or property of the defendant, the clerk of the court must mail, within ten days of the answer, notice to the defendant identical to that in Chapter 61 cases. The burden of proof for exempt property would be on the defendant. The provisions are similar to H.B. 2371.



• Defendants in criminal, traffic, and juvenile offender cases who owe debts to the court and who fail to pay when ordered, if the court uses a collection service, there will be a cost of collection as an administrative fee to pay the actual costs of collection to be paid by the defendant. Under current law, the costs owed by the defendant can be taken from the restitution or compensation amount awarded to the victim. These provisions are similar to those in H.B. 2083.



• The bill also would amend K.S.A. 60-3002 regarding civil procedure and filing of foreign judgements. This bill would allow a certified copy of a foreign judgement to be filed with the clerk of the district court in addition to authenticated copies of foreign judgements. This bill also amends the law to establish that, if the judgement is still enforceable in the jurisdiction where it was originally rendered, then the Kansas statute of limitation, if expired on the cause of action, shall not apply when the foreign judgement is filed in Kansas. This provision was the original S.B. 306.

The House on Final Action amended the bill to require employers to notify, in writing, newly hired employees that, in the case of bankruptcy, an employer is only required to pay an employee for 90 days of back pay of not more than $4,000.

Background

A representative of the Credit Attorneys Association and Kansas Collectors Association, Incorporated testified in support of the original bill. He testified that there are two goals of this legislation: (1) make it easier to register a foreign judgement by allowing the judgement to be a certified copy; and (2) provide that, if at the time the judgement is filed in Kansas, it is enforceable in the jurisdiction where it was originally rendered, the Kansas statute of limitations on judgements in Kansas shall not apply. Current law requires that the judgment be authenticated while some jurisdictions do not have a procedure to authenticate a document, but do have a method for certification of documents. Additionally, he testified that this amendment would prevent the example of a Colorado resident escaping liability on an otherwise valid obligation by moving to Kansas after the Kansas statute had run out on a Colorado judgement, even if the Colorado law was still enforceable.

1. *Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at http://www.ink.org/public/legislative/bill_search.html