Connecticut House Bill HB05491

Connecticut 2018 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/7/18
• Refer: 3/7/18
• Report Pass: 3/20/18
• Refer: 3/29/18
• Report Pass: 4/5/18

Caption

An Act Concerning The Amount Of Money Financial Institutions Must Leave In A Judgment Debtor's Account During A Bank Account Execution.

Impact

The proposed bill's changes would significantly affect state laws governing financial executions against individuals. By establishing a retained balance—set at a minimum of either $1,000 or the account balance, whichever is lesser—this law aims to protect consumers from experiencing complete depletion of their accessible funds and, in turn, help avoid undue hardship during the debt recovery process. The intent is to allow those under financial distress to maintain a basic level of financial security and access to funds necessary for living expenses.

Summary

House Bill 05491 addresses specific regulations concerning the amounts that financial institutions must leave in a judgment debtor's bank account during execution proceedings. This bill seeks to amend Section 52-367b of Connecticut's General Statutes to clarify the minimum allowable balance that must be retained in the debtor's account when funds are subject to execution due to a judgment against them. The act is meant to provide a clearer structure around the collection process in financial disputes, with a slated effective date in October 2018.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding HB05491 appears to favor the protection of judgment debtors against aggressive financial recovery practices, promoting a more humane approach to debt collection. Supporters argue that the legislation balances the interests of creditors with the rights of individuals facing financial difficulties. Nonetheless, there may be concerns from some creditor representatives about potentially hampering recovery efforts and creating additional burdens on the collection process. As such, the discourse reflects a tension between consumer protection measures and the efficacy of financial recovery practices.

Contention

Notable points of contention include whether the proposed measures adequately address the needs of both judgment debtors and creditors. While supporters of the bill emphasize the importance of safeguarding a minimum balance for essential living expenses, opponents may argue that such regulations could delay or complicate the collection of debts owed to creditors. Additionally, the implementation of such provisions raises questions about the operational complexities for financial institutions tasked with adhering to new compliance requirements without putting themselves at risk of liability for misinterpretation of the law.