Louisiana House Bill HB391

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/12/12
• Refer: 3/12/12

Caption

Appropriates funds to pay claim against the state in the matter of "Terry Tedesco Home Builders, L.L.C. v. Cynthia Bridges, Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, State of La. and State of La."

Impact

The passage of HB 391 is significant because it demonstrates the state's commitment to honor judgments rendered by judicial bodies, such as the Board of Tax Appeals. Appropriating state funds for this purpose ensures that the state avoids potential further legal complications or penalties associated with unpaid judgments. This measure not only provides immediate financial relief to the claimant, Terry Tedesco Home Builders, L.L.C., but also conveys a sense of stability and trust in the state's governance and financial dealings.

Summary

House Bill 391 focuses on appropriating funds from the state general fund to settle a legal judgment against the state concerning the case of 'Terry Tedesco Home Builders, L.L.C. v. Cynthia Bridges, Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, State of Louisiana'. Specifically, the bill allocates the sum of $61,340 to cover the judgment rendered by the Board of Tax Appeals, reflecting the state's financial responsibility in this matter. The bill's funding is drawn from the fiscal year 2012-2013 budget, highlighting the need for fiscal accountability in resolving legal obligations.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding HB 391 appears to be neutral, as it is largely a procedural bill addressing financial obligations rather than a piece of legislation that stirs deep ideological divisions. Stakeholders may recognize the necessity of such appropriations to ensure compliance with legal rulings, thereby preventing additional financial ramifications. However, the conversations around funding mechanisms and impacts on the state's budgetary allocations could lead to ongoing discussions about fiscal responsibility and prioritization of state revenues.

Contention

While the bill itself does not evoke strong contention, it does raise questions about the management of state funds and the implications of legal judgments on state finance. Lawmakers may debate the appropriateness of using the state general fund for such settlements and discuss the implications this has for future appropriations. As more cases arise, the state may face increased scrutiny over its financial decisions, ultimately impacting how it budgets for legal affairs and financial liabilities.