California 2019-2020 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB391

Introduced
2/6/19  
Refer
2/15/19  
Refer
2/15/19  
Report Pass
3/11/19  
Report Pass
3/11/19  
Refer
3/12/19  
Refer
3/12/19  
Refer
3/14/19  
Refer
3/25/19  
Report Pass
4/24/19  
Refer
4/24/19  
Refer
4/24/19  
Report Pass
5/8/19  
Report Pass
5/8/19  
Engrossed
5/13/19  
Engrossed
5/13/19  
Refer
5/14/19  
Refer
5/14/19  
Refer
5/22/19  
Report Pass
6/20/19  
Report Pass
6/20/19  
Refer
6/24/19  
Enrolled
9/5/19  
Enrolled
9/5/19  
Chaptered
10/8/19  

Caption

Leased and rented vehicles: embezzlement and theft.

Impact

The bill introduces significant amendments to Sections 10500 and 10855 of the Vehicle Code. It mandates that rental agreements clearly state the consequences of not returning a vehicle within the stipulated 72 hours, including potential criminal liability under embezzlement laws. Furthermore, it requires rental owners to try and contact the lessee prior to reporting the vehicle as stolen to law enforcement. The goal is to streamline the reporting process and encourage proactive communication between vehicle owners and renters, thereby decreasing unnecessary legal actions.

Summary

Assembly Bill No. 391, introduced by Voepel, focuses on the issue of embezzlement and theft related to leased and rented vehicles. Existing California law presumes that a person who fails to return a leased or rented vehicle within five days after the lease agreement expires has committed embezzlement. AB391 modifies this timeframe, reducing the period to 72 hours, reflecting a more expedited response to potential theft cases. This shift aims to enhance the efficiency of reporting stolen vehicles and improve recovery rates for rental companies and individual owners alike.

Sentiment

The sentiment among supporters of AB391 leans positively, with many praising it as a necessary update to adapt to the evolving landscape of vehicle rentals and theft. Advocates argue that the changes would prevent unnecessary delays in addressing potential theft and aid in quicker recoveries of vehicles. However, there are concerns raised by critics regarding the rapidity of the new 72-hour window, which they fear might place undue pressure on renters, especially those who may encounter legitimate delays in returning vehicles due to unforeseen circumstances.

Contention

Contention surrounding AB391 primarily revolves around the amended reporting requirements and the new shorter timeframe for presuming embezzlement. Supporters assert that the changes are essential for modernizing vehicle theft responses, while opponents argue that they may lead to abusive reporting practices by rental companies. Furthermore, questions remain about the legal implications for renters who might not be able to return vehicles within the newly required timeframe, raising concerns about potential wrongful accusations of theft.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB2169

Leased and rented vehicles: embezzlement and theft.

CA AB2620

Rental passenger vehicle transactions.

CA SB800

Real estate: licenses.

CA AB1799

Child abuse: reporting.

MN HF3112

Minnesota Recovery Residence Certification Act; certification system for recovery residences established, housing support eligibility and regulations modified, criminal penalties established, and money appropriated.

MN SF3060

Minnesota Recovery Residence Certification Act

CA SB255

Women, minority, disabled veteran, and LGBT business enterprise procurement: electric service providers: energy storage system companies: community choice aggregators.

CA AB2392

Vehicles: towing and storage.