California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 377 — Deferred deposit transactions.

Last action — From Senate committee without further action.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law, the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, provides for the licensure and regulation by the Commissioner of Corporations of persons engaged in the business of making or negotiating deferred deposit transactions. Existing law prohibits a licensee from making false, misleading, or deceptive advertisements regarding its business of making or negotiating deferred deposit transactions. Existing law prohibits a licensee from placing an advertisement disseminated primarily in this state for a deferred deposit transaction unless the licensee discloses that it is licensed by the Department of Corporations. Existing law authorizes the commissioner to require a licensee to maintain a file of its advertisements for a period of 90 days. Existing law provides that a customer who enters into a deferred deposit transaction shall not be subject to criminal penalties for failure to comply with the terms of a deferred deposit transaction agreement. Existing law authorizes a licensee to defer the deposit of a customer's personal check for up to 31 days and provides that the face amount of the check shall not exceed $300. Existing law requires an agreement to enter into a deferred deposit transaction to be in writing and to include specified information and disclosures. Existing law authorizes a licensee to allow an extension of time, or a payment plan, for repayment of an existing deferred deposit transaction, as specified. A willful violation of the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law is a crime. This bill would require specified applicants for licensure under the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, including, but not limited to, corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships, to include in their applications fingerprints and a completed statement of identity and questionnaire, as specified, for certain individuals, and other information, as specified. The bill would require a licensee to notify the department in writing of changes to the individuals named in the licensee's original application for licensure or if the licensee or any of those individuals has been found to have violated the laws of another state relative to deferred deposit transactions. The bill would also require a licensee to notify the department in writing when offering a new product or service that will generate more than 5% of the revenues of an office. The bill would make advertisements on the Internet by a licensee subject to the provisions regulating deferred deposit transaction advertisements and would require a licensee to maintain a file of all advertising copy currently in use for a period of 2 years from the date of itsfinal use. The bill would authorize the face amount of a check for a deferred deposit transaction to be up to $500. The bill would prohibit a deferred deposit transaction customer from being threatened with criminal penalties for a failure to comply with the terms of an agreement and would prohibit a licensee from referring or delivering a check taken in a deferred deposit transaction to a prosecutor, district attorney's diversion program, or other law enforcement official for purposes of collection or criminal prosecution unless that information is requested as part of an investigation. The bill would require a specified notice that is separate and distinct from the deferred deposit transaction agreement to be provided to and initialed by a customer before entering into the agreement. The bill would require the notice to inform the customer that he or she may rescind a deferred deposit transaction at no cost by notifying the licensee and returning the proceeds of the transaction within a specified time period. The bill would also require a licensee to make reasonable and accessible provisions for a customer to notify the licensee of his or her intent to rescind the transaction and return the loan proceeds and would require these provisions to be included with this notice. The bill would require that, if the deferred deposit transaction is conducted over the Internet, the customer shall agree in the written agreement to conduct the transaction and to receive notices and the agreement electronically. The bill would also require a licensee, when conducting deferred deposit transactions over the Internet, to make notices and the agreement available to a customer in a format that may be downloaded and printed or, if the customer is unable to download that information, to mail the documents to the customer within 24 hours of the transaction. The bill would require a licensee to annually pay a fee to the commissioner of 5 cents for each deferred deposit transaction paid in full in the previous calendar year and would require the money from these fees to be used by the commissioner to provide financial literacy education programs relative to deferred deposit transactions. The bill would authorize a customer who is unable to repay a deferred deposit transaction to elect, once in any 12-month period, to repay the deferred deposit transaction to the licensee pursuant to an extended payment plan, as specified. The bill would require a customer to be notified of his or her right to an extended payment plan. Because a willful violation of the bill's provisions by a licensee would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From Senate committee without further action.

  2. In committee: Set, first hearing. Testimony taken. Further hearing to be set.

  3. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  4. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  5. From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 7. Noes 1.) (June 17).

  6. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B., F. & I.

  7. Referred to Coms. on B., F. & I. and JUD.

  8. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  9. Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 53. Noes 8. Page 1355.)

  10. Read second time. To third reading.

  11. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 29).

  12. From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 10. Noes 1.) (April 13).

  13. Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.

  14. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on B. & F. Read second time and amended.

  15. Referred to Com. on B. & F.

  16. From printer. May be heard in committee March 26.

  17. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Mendoza · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 1 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Mendoza

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary.

Passed 7 Yea · 1 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5104
Democratic 2000
Total 7104
% of votes cast 58%8%0%33%
How each member voted (12)
Member Party Vote
Florez — Not Voting
Harman — Yea
Runner — Yea
Liu — Not Voting
Lowenthal — Not Voting
Wolk — Nay
Kehoe — Not Voting
Cogdill — Yea
Correa — Yea
Cox — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

AB 377 MENDOZA Assembly Third Reading

Passed 58 Yea · 8 Nay · 26 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 3002
Unaffiliated 547023
Republican 1101
Total 588026
% of votes cast 63%9%0%28%
How each member voted (92)
Member Party Vote
Bill — Yea
Berryhill — Yea
Tom — Yea
Berryhill — Yea
Beall — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Charles — Yea
Eng — Not Voting
Evans — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Fuller — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Garrick — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Gaines — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Carter — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Saldana — Nay
Chesbro — Nay
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Yea
De — Not Voting
La — Not Voting
Torre — Not Voting
V. — Not Voting
Manuel — Not Voting
Perez — Not Voting
John — Not Voting
A. — Not Voting
Perez — Not Voting
Portantino — Not Voting
Bass — Yea
Conway — Yea
Cook — Yea
Coto — Yea
Duvall — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hill — Nay
Huffman — Nay
Jeffries — Yea
Krekorian — Not Voting
Lieu — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Yea
Monning — Not Voting
Nava — Not Voting
Price — Yea
Ruskin — Nay
Silva — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torres — Yea
Tran — Yea
Salas — Not Voting
Audra — Not Voting
Swanson — Not Voting
Adams — Yea
Ammiano — Not Voting
Anderson — Yea
Block — Yea
Blumenfield — Not Voting
Brownley — Not Voting
Buchanan — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Huber — Yea
Knight — Yea
Logue — Yea
Ma — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Skinner — Nay
Torlakson — Yea
Torrico — Not Voting
Villines — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Feuer — Nay
Davis — Yea
DeVore — Yea
Yamada — Not Voting
Furutani — Not Voting
Gilmore — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Not Voting
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Not Voting
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 11 Yea · 0 Nay · 10 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10009
Democratic 1000
Republican 0001
Total 110010
% of votes cast 52%0%0%48%
How each member voted (21)
Member Party Vote
Charles — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
John — Not Voting
A. — Not Voting
Perez — Not Voting
Audra — Not Voting
Duvall — Not Voting
Krekorian — Yea
Miller — Not Voting
Monning — Yea
Price — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Harkey — Not Voting
Nielsen — Not Voting
Skinner — Not Voting
Torlakson — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Subjects

finance labor
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 377 do?
Existing law, the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, provides for the licensure and regulation by the Commissioner of Corporations of persons engaged in the business of making or negotiating deferred deposit transactions. Existing law prohibits a licensee from making false, misleading, or deceptive advertisements regarding its business of making or negotiating deferred deposit transactions. Existing law prohibits a licensee from placing an advertisement disseminated primarily in this state for a deferred deposit transaction unless the licensee discloses that it is licensed by the Department of Corporations. Existing law authorizes the commissioner to require a licensee to maintain a file of its advertisements for a period of 90 days. Existing law provides that a customer who enters into a deferred deposit transaction shall not be subject to criminal penalties for failure to comply with the terms of a deferred deposit transaction agreement. Existing law authorizes a licensee to defer the deposit of a customer's personal check for up to 31 days and provides that the face amount of the check shall not exceed $300. Existing law requires an agreement to enter into a deferred deposit transaction to be in writing and to include specified information and disclosures. Existing law authorizes a licensee to allow an extension of time, or a payment plan, for repayment of an existing deferred deposit transaction, as specified. A willful violation of the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law is a crime. This bill would require specified applicants for licensure under the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, including, but not limited to, corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships, to include in their applications fingerprints and a completed statement of identity and questionnaire, as specified, for certain individuals, and other information, as specified. The bill would require a licensee to notify the department in writing of changes to the individuals named in the licensee's original application for licensure or if the licensee or any of those individuals has been found to have violated the laws of another state relative to deferred deposit transactions. The bill would also require a licensee to notify the department in writing when offering a new product or service that will generate more than 5% of the revenues of an office. The bill would make advertisements on the Internet by a licensee subject to the provisions regulating deferred deposit transaction advertisements and would require a licensee to maintain a file of all advertising copy currently in use for a period of 2 years from the date of itsfinal use. The bill would authorize the face amount of a check for a deferred deposit transaction to be up to $500. The bill would prohibit a deferred deposit transaction customer from being threatened with criminal penalties for a failure to comply with the terms of an agreement and would prohibit a licensee from referring or delivering a check taken in a deferred deposit transaction to a prosecutor, district attorney's diversion program, or other law enforcement official for purposes of collection or criminal prosecution unless that information is requested as part of an investigation. The bill would require a specified notice that is separate and distinct from the deferred deposit transaction agreement to be provided to and initialed by a customer before entering into the agreement. The bill would require the notice to inform the customer that he or she may rescind a deferred deposit transaction at no cost by notifying the licensee and returning the proceeds of the transaction within a specified time period. The bill would also require a licensee to make reasonable and accessible provisions for a customer to notify the licensee of his or her intent to rescind the transaction and return the loan proceeds and would require these provisions to be included with this notice. The bill would require that, if the deferred deposit transaction is conducted over the Internet, the customer shall agree in the written agreement to conduct the transaction and to receive notices and the agreement electronically. The bill would also require a licensee, when conducting deferred deposit transactions over the Internet, to make notices and the agreement available to a customer in a format that may be downloaded and printed or, if the customer is unable to download that information, to mail the documents to the customer within 24 hours of the transaction. The bill would require a licensee to annually pay a fee to the commissioner of 5 cents for each deferred deposit transaction paid in full in the previous calendar year and would require the money from these fees to be used by the commissioner to provide financial literacy education programs relative to deferred deposit transactions. The bill would authorize a customer who is unable to repay a deferred deposit transaction to elect, once in any 12-month period, to repay the deferred deposit transaction to the licensee pursuant to an extended payment plan, as specified. The bill would require a customer to be notified of his or her right to an extended payment plan. Because a willful violation of the bill's provisions by a licensee would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors AB 377?
AB 377 is sponsored by Mendoza.
What is the current status of AB 377?
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 377?
Track AB 377 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 377

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 377

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →