Louisiana 2021 Regular Session

Louisiana House Bill HB126

Introduced
3/15/21  
Introduced
3/15/21  
Refer
3/15/21  
Refer
3/15/21  
Refer
4/12/21  

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Alma Gonzales Mora, et al v. Sidney Farrior, et al c/w Lee Mar v. The Hanover Insurance Company, et al

Impact

The legislation underscores the need for state funds to be available to satisfy court judgments, thus impacting how the state manages its financial obligations. Furthermore, the stipulation within the bill regarding the finality of judgments as a prerequisite for payment ensures that appropriations are made based on resolved cases, potentially influencing future judicial claims against the state. Additionally, the bill includes provisions that allow for the court judgment to take precedence over any conflicting legislation, indicating a clear prioritization of finalized judicial decisions.

Summary

House Bill 126 appropriates $15,000 from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2021-2022 to cover a consent judgment related to a legal case involving the state of Louisiana and various plaintiffs. The bill is primarily aimed at resolving financial obligations that arose from a civil suit entitled 'Alma Gonzales Mora, et al v. Sidney Farrior, et al c/w Lee Mar v. The Hanover Insurance Company, et al.' The case pertains to claims against the state through the Department of Transportation and Development, highlighting the state's responsibility in settling judgments made against it.

Sentiment

Discussions around HB 126 reflect a generally supportive sentiment towards ensuring that judgments against the state are resolved promptly and honorably. Lawmakers and stakeholders appear to agree on the importance of fulfilling legal financial obligations, which fosters trust in the state's governance and judicial processes. However, there may be undercurrents of concern regarding the implications of such appropriations on the overall budget and resource allocation for other state needs.

Contention

While HB 126 does not seem to face significant opposition, the bill's fundamental premise raises questions about the state's financial preparedness to handle legal settlements. There might be concerns among some stakeholders about the potential for similar appropriations to become commonplace, which could pressure state finances and impact budget planning for other essential services. The emphasis on conflict resolution and fulfilling the states' commitments through such appropriations indicates a broader discussion about accountability and the financial management of governmental bodies.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

LA HB272

Appropriates funds for payment of consent judgment against the state in the suit entitled Joseph S. Lessard et al. v. DOTD et al.

Similar Bills

CA SB1200

Enforcement of judgments: renewal and interest.

AZ HB2297

Judgments; liens; homestead exemption

KY HB801

AN ACT relating to Canadian money judgments.

CA AB1119

Enforcement of judgments.

CA AB905

Money judgments of other jurisdictions.

CA SB642

Civil actions: renewal of judgments.

CA SB355

Judgment debtor employers: Employment Development Department.

UT SB0326

Judgment Renewal Modifications