California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 350 — Debt management and settlement.

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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 Check Sellers, Bill Payers and Proraters Law, provides for licensure and regulation by the Commissioner of Corporations of persons engaged in, among other activities, the business of receiving money as an agent of the obligor for the purpose of paying bills, invoices, or accounts for the obligor. This bill would enact the Debt Settlement Services Act and would, commencing January 1, 2012, provide for the licensing and regulation by the commissioner of providers, defined as persons that provide, offer to provide, or agree to provide debt settlement services, as defined, directly or through others. The bill would require a provider to submit specified fees and an application, signed under penalty of perjury, for licensure with the commissioner. An applicant, and any person who signs an application on behalf of an applicant, who knowingly misrepresents or submits any material matter that is false, or a person who otherwise willfully violates a provision of the act, would be guilty of a misdemeanor. The bill would specify the conditions under which the commissioner may issue or deny licensure as a provider and would require a provider to satisfy certain requirements before entering into an agreement with an individual for the provision of debt settlement services, including providing specified disclosures. The bill would require an agreement for debt settlement services to contain specified terms and would prohibit providers from engaging in specified practices. The bill would require a provider to submit annual reports to the commissioner containing specified information relating to its business in the previous calendar year. The bill would authorize the commissioner to take enforcement actions against a provider for violations of the bill's provisions and would also authorize an injured individual to recover specified damages from a provider that violates the bill's provisions. The bill would enact other related provisions. Because the bill would create a new crime, and expand the scope of the crime of perjury, it 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, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  3. In committee: Set second hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted.

  4. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  5. (Corrected April 22.)

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

  7. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  8. From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Re-referred. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (July 9).

  9. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

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

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

  14. Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 56. Noes 22. Page 1950.)

  15. Read second time. To third reading.

  16. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  17. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 4.) (May 28).

  18. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  19. From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 9. Noes 1.) (April 28).

  20. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  21. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  22. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  23. Read second time and amended.

  24. From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 8. Noes 1.) (March 23).

  25. Referred to Coms. on B. & F. and JUD.

  26. From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.

  27. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Florez · Cosponsor
  • Lieu · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on · 3 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Lieu

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Florez

Not signed on (120)

120 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 120 →

"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

AB 350 LIEU Assembly Third Reading

Passed 66 Yea · 23 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 3000
Unaffiliated 622103
Republican 1200
Total 662303
% of votes cast 72%25%0%3%
How each member voted (92)
Member Party Vote
Tom — Yea
Charles — Yea
Beall — Yea
Bill — Not Voting
Eng — Yea
Feuer — Yea
De — Yea
La — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Fong — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
V. — Yea
Manuel — Yea
Perez — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Salas — Yea
Saldana — Yea
Carter — Yea
Conway — Nay
Fuentes — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Gilmore — Nay
Hagman — Nay
Fletcher — Nay
Audra — Nay
Blakeslee — Nay
Cook — Nay
Duvall — Nay
Hall — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huber — Yea
Jeffries — Nay
Knight — Nay
Lieu — Yea
Logue — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Nay
Nava — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Price — Yea
Ruskin — Yea
Silva — Nay
Skinner — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torres — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Villines — Nay
Adams — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Bass — Yea
Block — Not Voting
Blumenfield — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Hernandez — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Krekorian — Yea
Ma — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Smyth — Nay
Torlakson — Yea
Tran — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Emmerson — Nay
Coto — Yea
Evans — Yea
Davis — Yea
DeVore — Nay
Fuller — Yea
Garrick — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Not Voting
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Nay
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 16 Yea · 4 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 15401
Democratic 1000
Republican 0001
Total 16402
% of votes cast 73%18%0%9%
How each member voted (22)
Member Party Vote
Charles — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Hall — Yea
Audra — Not Voting
Krekorian — Yea
Miller — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Duvall — Nay
Price — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Davis — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Subjects

finance
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 350 do?
Existing law, the Check Sellers, Bill Payers and Proraters Law, provides for licensure and regulation by the Commissioner of Corporations of persons engaged in, among other activities, the business of receiving money as an agent of the obligor for the purpose of paying bills, invoices, or accounts for the obligor. This bill would enact the Debt Settlement Services Act and would, commencing January 1, 2012, provide for the licensing and regulation by the commissioner of providers, defined as persons that provide, offer to provide, or agree to provide debt settlement services, as defined, directly or through others. The bill would require a provider to submit specified fees and an application, signed under penalty of perjury, for licensure with the commissioner. An applicant, and any person who signs an application on behalf of an applicant, who knowingly misrepresents or submits any material matter that is false, or a person who otherwise willfully violates a provision of the act, would be guilty of a misdemeanor. The bill would specify the conditions under which the commissioner may issue or deny licensure as a provider and would require a provider to satisfy certain requirements before entering into an agreement with an individual for the provision of debt settlement services, including providing specified disclosures. The bill would require an agreement for debt settlement services to contain specified terms and would prohibit providers from engaging in specified practices. The bill would require a provider to submit annual reports to the commissioner containing specified information relating to its business in the previous calendar year. The bill would authorize the commissioner to take enforcement actions against a provider for violations of the bill's provisions and would also authorize an injured individual to recover specified damages from a provider that violates the bill's provisions. The bill would enact other related provisions. Because the bill would create a new crime, and expand the scope of the crime of perjury, it 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 350?
AB 350 is sponsored by Florez and Lieu.
What is the current status of AB 350?
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 350?
Track AB 350 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 350

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 350

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →