Connecticut House Bill HB07002

Connecticut 2020 Regular Session

• Introduced: 9/30/20
• Engrossed: 9/30/20
• Passed: 10/1/20
• Enrolled: 10/1/20
• Passed: 10/2/20
• Chaptered: 10/8/20
• Enrolled: 10/16/20

Caption

An Act Concerning Certain Fees And Expenses Of State Marshals When Serving Process.

Impact

The proposed changes are significant as they seek to standardize and clarify the compensation framework for marshals serving legal processes within the state. This legislation is likely to lead to more consistent financial expectations for service providers and could streamline operations in the Judicial Department's dealings with process servers. By clearly delineating fees based on various actions taken by marshals, the bill intends to avoid confusion and potential disputes over service payments, thereby improving the overall efficiency of the legal process.

Summary

House Bill No. 7002 outlines revised fee structures for state marshals and other officials involved in serving legal processes. It establishes a base fee of thirty dollars for the initial service of process for state officials and municipalities, with additional fees for subsequent services and travel. The bill also provides reimbursement for expenses incurred by marshals for services such as directly summoning jurors and disbursing records from the Department of Motor Vehicles. The stringent definitions and revised fee structures aim to ensure fairness and accountability in the financial dealings associated with legal process serving.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding HB 7002 appears to be cautiously supportive among legislators, as it aims to enhance the professionalism and operational efficiency of process serving while also protecting state and local resources. However, there exists a concern among some stakeholders regarding the implications of the new fee schedules, particularly how they might affect the availability and willingness of marshals to perform services, especially in financially constrained areas. Discussions in committee meetings suggested a desire for transparency and fairness, indicating that the bill is being received positively as an effort to modernize and refine existing practice.

Contention

Notable points of contention emerged regarding the adequacy of the proposed fees, particularly whether they adequately compensate for the time and resources marshals spend serving processes. Critics raised concerns that reduced fees could deter efficient service provisioning, especially in rural settings where accessibility may hinder service times. Additionally, the balance between state oversight and local autonomy in setting these fees was another area of debate. While the bill seeks to standardize fees, some members emphasized the need for flexibility to adapt to local conditions and the additional costs that may arise from unique geographic challenges.