Legislative Updates 2007
By Heidi Beginski, Board Certified Paralegal, Personal Injury Trial Law, Texas
Board of Legal Specialization
The following is a very brief synopsis
of some of the significant legal
developments in Texas during the year.
This summary is not exhaustive in either
the topics included nor the breadth of
scope of changes to each topic, but will
provide some general information in areas
of interest to paralegals.
Here come the judges ….
S.B. 1951
Creates 11 new district courts:
1. El Paso County Criminal District
Court No. 1 (effective September 1, 2007)
2. 418th District Court (Montgomery
County) (effective September 1, 2007)
3. 435th District Court (Montgomery
County) (effective September 1, 2007)
4. 444th District Court (Cameron
County) (effective September 1, 2007)
5. 445th District Court (Cameron
County) (effective September 1, 2007)
6. 448th District Court (El Paso County)
(effective September 1, 2007)
7. 449th District Court (Hidlago County)
(effective September 1, 2007)
8. 506th District Court (Grimes and
Waller counties) (effective September 1,
2007)
9. 397th District Court (Grayson County)
(effective September 15, 2008)
10. 423rd District Court (Bastrop
County) (effective October 1, 2007)
11. 429th District Court (Collin County)
(effective January 1, 2009)
This bill also reduces the number of counties
served by four existing district courts:
9th District Court will serve only
Montgomery County (effective September
1, 2007)
278th District Court will serve only
Leon, Madison, and Walker counties
(effective September 1, 2008)
6th District Court will serve only
Lamar and Red River counties (effective
January 1, 2010)
336thDistrict Court will serve only Fannin County (effective January 1, 2010)
Legislation established six additional
county courts at law:
H.B. 682 creates Montgomery County
Court at Law No. 5
H.B. 4008 creates El Paso County
Criminal Courts at Law No. 3 and No.
4, which will have the criminal jurisdiction
of a statutory criminal court.
Court No. 4 will give preference to
criminal offenses involving family violence.
H.B. 4139 creates Van Zandt County
Court at Law (effective January 1, 2011)
S.B. 660 creates Travis County Court at
Law No. 8, which will give preference
to criminal cases (effective January 1,
2008)
S.B. 2018 creates Hunt County Court at
Law No. 2
There’s no place like home, …except
more child support and personal identity
“King of the Castle”
Bill S.B. 378
In 1973, the Legislature amended the
Penal Code to permit the use of deadly
force only if a reasonable person in the situation
would not have retreated. In 1995,
the Legislature provided that a person had
no such duty to retreat if the person was in
his home. S.B. 378 expands the “no
retreat” concept to a person’s place of
business and vehicle and provides for a
presumption of reasonableness for a person’s
belief that the use of force or deadly
force is reasonable if the actor did not provoke
the other person and was not
engaged in criminal activity (excluding
traffic offenses) and knew or had reason to
believe that the person against whom force
or deadly force was used: 1) unlawfully and
with force entered or was trying to enter
that person’s home, vehicle or place of
business or employment; 2) unlawfully
and with force removed or was trying to
remove that person from the person’s
home, vehicle or place of business or
employment; or 3) was committing or trying
to commit aggravated kidnapping,
murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
In addition, a person who has a right to
be present at the location where the force
is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the force is used, and who is
not engaged in criminal activity (excluding
traffic offenses) at the time the force is
used is not required to retreat before using
force. S.B. 378 further establishes that a
finder of fact may not consider whether
the actor failed to retreat when determining
whether the actor reasonably believed
the use of deadly force was necessary.
The last section of the bill provides for
civil immunity for a defendant who uses
force or deadly force that is justified under
Chapter 9 of the Penal Code.
Filings in County Real Estate Records
H.B. 732
H.B. 732 resolves concerns that Texas
county clerks have had on whether faxed,
emailed or photocopied documents can be
filed in their real estate records. Chapter 12
of the Property Code was amended to prohibit
a paper document concerning real or
personal property from being recorded or
serving as notice of a paper document
unless the paper document contains an
original signature that is acknowledged,
sworn to with the proper jurat, or proved
according to law, or unless the document
is attached as an exhibit to a paper affidavit
that has an original signature that is acknowledged, sworn to with the proper
jurat, or proved according to law. Original
signatures are not required for electronic
instruments or other documents that comply
with Chapter 15 of the Property Code,
Chapter 195 of the Local Government
Code, Chapter 43 of the Texas Business &
Commerce Code, or other applicable law.
Child Support Cap Increased
After more than a decade, the child
support “cap” has been increased from
$6,000 per month (net resources) to
$7,500 per month (net resources). In addition
to the cap increase, new Section
154.125 provides that the cap will be adjusted
every six years for inflation. The next
adjustment will take effect September 1,
2013.
Liability of County and District Clerk Disclosure
H.B. 2061—effective March 28, 2007
H.B. 2061 was adopted by the Legislature
to address an opinion released by
Attorney General Greg Abbott requiring
county and district clerks to redact Social
Security numbers from documents that
are available to the public on the Internet.
The opinion also provided that releasing
documents without editing the Social
Security numbers would make clerks subject
to criminal liabilities under state law.
Clerks around the state reacted to the
opinion by limiting access to public
records, citing that they do not have the
resources to redact every Social Security
number present. H.B. 2061 addresses these
issues by providing county clerks are not
liable for disclosing a document filed with
the county or district clerk that contains a
Social Security number. Additionally, the
bill requires an individual to provide a
written request to have all but the last four
digits of the Social Security number
removed. Finally, the bill requires clerks to
accept documents for filing even if the
Social Security number is displayed and
the clerk is not required to confirm that a
Social Security number has been redacted
from a document.
Notices of Identity Theft To Check Verification
Entities
H.B. 2002- effective September 1, 2007
H.B. 2002 requires a financial institution
to offer its customers the option of
having it notify check verification entities
that a customer has been the victim of identif y theft with respect to an identified
account at the financial institution. The
bill provides for a secure electronic notification
system to convey specified information
concerning the customer and the
account. The customer may also notify the
check verification entity directly. A check
verification entity may not approve a
check or sight order purportedly issued by
the customer and drawn on the identified
account if it has received notification
through the electronic notification system
or if the customer presents certain information
to the entity. While the effective
date of the bill is September 1, 2007, a
financial institution is not required to
comply with the new provisions until
March 1, 2008.
Say, “Ahhh….”
Regulating the Practice of Dentistry
H.B. 3876—effective September 1, 2007
Under current law, the State Board of
Dental Examiners regulates licensed dentists
but has limited authority over dental
clinics that employ dentists to perform
dental services. This limited jurisdiction
prevents dentists from obtaining patient
records, which, in turn, prevents the board
from investigating complaints from the
public and hinders dentists’ ability to
answer questions regarding the care provided
to their patients.
The new law makes a significant change
to proceedings in a suit involving a health
care liability claim against a dentist for
injury or death to a patient. The bill
authorizes any entity providing dental
services to designate a dental custodian of
records who will provide records to the
board or to a dentist who has provided
dental treatment and to comply with other
laws regarding dental patient records.
The new law also makes a significant
procedural change to health care liability
lawsuits against a dentist by prohibiting a
member of the board from serving as an
expert witness in a suit unless the member
receives approval of the dental board or
executive committee.
While you’re out driving ….
“Obscured License Plate” Bill
S.B. 369
The Court of Criminal Appeals recently
stated that a motorist is in violation of the
law if any part of the motorist’s license is
obscured. S.B. 369 clarifies that a vehicle is
not in violation of the state in which the
vehicle is registered and the license plate
number are not obscured or altered.
Red-Light Cameras
S.B. 1119—effective September 1, 2007
Although red-light camera systems
have been popping up in major Texas
cities, current law does not address or regulate
their use. Additionally, the use of
such systems by municipalities has been
criticized by the media and members of
the public as a way to generate money
rather than enhance public safety. S.B. 1119
addresses these issues and creates guidelines
for red-light camera use by municipalities.
S.B. 1119 establishes the statutory
framework under which red-light camera
systems will operate to ensure the system
is not being used as a source to generate
revenue. The bill restricts contracts
between municipalities and vendors so
that compensation is not based on the
number of citations issued. Also, the new
law requires a traffic engineering study to
include a history of accidents, frequency of
red-light violations, and similar traffic
engineering and safety criteria to be conducted
prior to camera placement in a
particular area.
Automobile Premium Surcharge
Prior to this legislative session, an automobile
insurer was allowed to assess a premium
surcharge at the time an insurance
policy is renewed if the insured has filed
one or more claims in the preceding three
policy years. This has been changed to
provide that the insured must have filed
two or more claims in the preceding three
policy years before a premium surcharge
can be assessed.
Refund of Excessive or Unfairly Discriminatory
Premiums For Automobile Insurance or
Residential Property Insurance
If the insurance commissioner determines that an insurance company has
charged a rate for personal automobile
insurance or residential property insurance
that is excessive or unfairly discriminatory,
the commissioner may order the
company to refund directly to each affected
policyholder the portion of the premium
that is excessive or unfairly discriminatory
as well as pay interest on that
amount. The rate of interest assessed is the
lesser of 18 percent or the sum of 6 percent
plus the prime rate for the calendar year in
which the commissioner’s order is issued.
Heidi Beginski is a paralegal with the El
Paso firm of Rincon Mounts, P.C.
|
