California Assembly Bill AB2463

California 2019-2020 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/19/20
• Refer: 3/2/20
• Report Pass: 3/2/20
• Refer: 3/4/20
• Report Pass: 5/4/20
• Refer: 5/5/20
• Report Pass: 5/27/20
• Engrossed: 6/11/20
• Refer: 6/11/20
• Refer: 7/1/20
• Report Pass: 7/28/20
• Refer: 7/28/20
• Report Pass: 8/5/20
• Refer: 8/5/20
• Report Pass: 8/13/20
• Refer: 8/13/20
• Enrolled: 8/30/20
• Chaptered: 9/28/20
• Passed: 9/28/20

Caption

Enforcement of money judgments: execution: homestead.

Impact

The bill's enactment is likely to impact the way judgments are executed against individuals, particularly in the context of consumer debts. By restricting the sale of a debtor's primary residence for debts not secured by that property, the bill reinforces the notion of homestead protections. This change addresses concerns regarding individuals losing their homes due to personal debt while not having the income or means to repay such debts, thus potentially preventing homelessness and preserving community stability.

Summary

Assembly Bill 2463, authored by Wicks, aims to amend existing provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure concerning the enforcement of money judgments related to consumer debt. The bill introduces a new section, 699.730, which explicitly states that the principal place of residence of a judgment debtor cannot be sold under execution of a judgment lien unless the debt was secured by that residence at the time it was incurred. This is a significant change as it enhances protections for homeowners facing judgments based on consumer debts, aiming to safeguard individuals' primary residences from being sold off to satisfy such debts.

Sentiment

General sentiment surrounding AB 2463 appears positive, especially among advocates for consumer protections and housing rights. Supporters argue that the bill is a crucial step toward ensuring that individuals are not unduly punished by losing their homes due to consumer debt issues. However, there may be concerns among financial institutions and creditors regarding the potential limitation this places on their ability to pursue debt recovery. The discourse suggests a balance between protecting individuals' homes and ensuring creditors can obtain payment for debts owed.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise from the exemptions outlined in the bill. For instance, certain types of debts, such as those related to child support, taxes, or spousal support, are not covered by the new restrictions, leaving open the potential for complex legal interpretations and disputes in individual cases. Additionally, the definition of consumer debt and the specific amounts exempted (over $75,000) could spark debates regarding fairness and the implications for individuals above or below that threshold.