Connecticut House Bill HB06692

Connecticut 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/3/13
• Refer: 4/3/13
• Report Pass: 4/19/13
• Refer: 4/29/13
• Report Pass: 5/6/13
• Engrossed: 6/4/13
• Report Pass: 6/4/13
• Chaptered: 6/24/13
• Enrolled: 6/27/13
• Passed: 7/12/13

Caption

An Act Concerning The Court's Authority To Deny An Application For The Waiver Of Court Fees.

Impact

With the passing of HB 06692, state laws regarding the judiciary's handling of fee waivers will become more stringent. The bill aims to ensure that only those who genuinely cannot afford to pay court fees and meet the criteria for indigency will be granted waivers. This change could lead to reduced court filings from individuals who fall under the category of 'frivolous' litigants, ultimately aiming to streamline judicial operations and allocate resources more effectively.

Summary

House Bill 06692 is an act that alters the court's authority regarding the waiver of court fees for applicants. The bill explicitly allows the court to deny applications for fee waivers if the applicant has a history of frivolous filings or if the application pertains to an action that is unlikely to receive relief. This legislative change seeks to reduce the burden on the judicial system by preventing potential abuses of the waiver process, which can consume resources and complicate court administration.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 06692 appears largely supportive among legislators who are focused on enhancing judicial efficiency. The reasoning behind the bill aligns with broader goals aimed at improving the integrity of court proceedings. Some advocates argue that it is necessary to deter misuse of the judicial system, while others may express concerns that the stricter criteria for waivers could unintentionally exclude genuinely indigent individuals from access to the courts.

Contention

Among the debates surrounding HB 06692, notable contention arises regarding the definition and implications of 'frivolous filings.' Critics might argue that the bill could set a challenging precedent where the court's discretion in determining indigency could lead to potential biases. Opponents may feel that while the intention to protect judicial resources is valid, the risk of denying access to justice for those in need could overshadow this benefit. The balance between preserving court resources and ensuring fair access to justice remains a key point of discussion.