Louisiana House Bill HB589

Louisiana 2018 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/2/18
• Refer: 3/2/18
• Refer: 3/12/18
• Report Pass: 4/6/18
• Engrossed: 4/16/18
• Refer: 4/17/18
• Report Pass: 4/30/18
• Enrolled: 5/10/18
• Chaptered: 5/15/18
• Passed: 5/15/18

Caption

Provides relative to fees and costs of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans (EN NO IMPACT LF See Note)

Impact

The proposed changes under HB 589 modify how revenue generated from court fees is distributed, potentially allowing for more financial stability within the Civil District Court's operations in Orleans Parish. By reallocating the revenue streams, the bill intends to enhance judicial funding and assist in maintaining a more effective legal system. This could improve court services and increase efficiency in handling civil matters within the jurisdiction.

Summary

House Bill 589 seeks to amend existing statutes regarding the fees and costs associated with the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, addressing both collection and allocation procedures. The bill stipulates that the clerk of the Civil District Court is responsible for collecting fees as outlined in state law and mandates that at least fifty percent of these fees go towards the Clerk's Salary Fund, while the rest is allocated to the judicial expense fund. This adjustment aims to ensure proper funding for court operations and personnel.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 589 appears to be generally supportive among those involved in the judicial system, particularly from members concerned with the proper funding of the court. Proponents believe that the restructuring of fee allocations will bolster the fiscal health of the court and ensure that the civil judiciary can operate more effectively. However, discussions surrounding the bill may indicate a level of apprehension or opposition regarding any changes that might affect the financial burden placed on court users.

Contention

While HB 589 has garnered support from various stakeholders, there may be contention regarding changes to the fee structure and potential implications for individuals and entities that are accessing the civil court system. Critics might argue that even slight increases in fees could disproportionately affect low-income individuals seeking justice, raising concerns about access to the judicial system. As such, the balance between necessary funding for the court and equitable access to justice remains a critical point of discussion.