Alabama House Bill HB384

Alabama 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/2/24
• Report Pass: 4/10/24
• Refer: 4/2/24
• Refer: 4/16/24
• Report Pass: 4/30/24
• Enrolled: 5/8/24
• Passed: 5/17/24

Caption

Tuscaloosa County, sheriff, service of process fees for personal service, distribution of funds to circuit clerk, sheriff, district attorney, and probate judge.

Impact

The bill's amendment directly impacts the fiscal operations of the Tuscaloosa County sheriff's office and other associated legal entities. By adjusting the fee structure, the bill is expected to enhance revenue for the sheriff's office and provide necessary resources for the operations of both the sheriff’s and district attorney's offices. A small portion of the fees will also contribute to the Circuit Clerk’s Fund, ensuring funds are allocated for the functioning of local judicial services.

Summary

House Bill 384 concerns the amendment of existing legislation that regulates service of process fees in Tuscaloosa County. The bill proposes an increase in the fee charged for documents personally served by the sheriff's office to $60. The legislation stipulates that this fee will cover only certain civil documents and will not apply to paperwork issued by the circuit court or specific mental health orders. This amendment aims to streamline fee collection and clarify which entities will benefit from the generated funds.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB384 appears to be largely supportive within the legislative body, as evidenced by its unanimous passage (30-0) during the voting process. The reasoning behind backing this bill stems from a collective understanding of the need for enhanced funding for local law enforcement agencies, which could contribute to more efficient services. However, there may be potential dissent among community members who are concerned about increased fees and their implications on access to justice.

Contention

While there are no significant points of contention recorded in the discussions around HB384, it is crucial to note that amendments to fee structures can sometimes evoke concerns over economic burdens placed on residents who utilize civil services. Critics might argue that an increase in service fees could disproportionately affect those with limited financial means, raising questions about equitable access to legal processes.