North Dakota Senate Bill SB2072

North Dakota 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/3/23
• Refer: 1/3/23
• Report Pass: 1/6/23
• Engrossed: 1/10/23
• Refer: 2/15/23
• Report Pass: 3/3/23
• Enrolled: 3/7/23
• Passed: 3/15/23

Caption

Service of garnishment.

Impact

The implementation of SB 2072 is expected to streamline the existing garnishment procedures involving state entities. By clarifying the process and establishing a clear point of contact for service, the bill could lead to a more efficient handling of financial disclosure requests in North Dakota. This change not only impacts creditors seeking to enforce garnishments but also state agencies that must comply with these legal requests. The move towards optional electronic methods signifies a modern approach to legal processes, aligning with technological advancements in administration.

Summary

Senate Bill 2072 aims to amend the North Dakota Century Code concerning the service of garnishment. The bill specifies that service to the state or any state institution, department, or agency as a garnishee is to be made upon the director of the Office of Management and Budget or their authorized designee. Additionally, the bill establishes a fee structure for these services, ensuring that the fees are deposited into the state treasury. An optional electronic method of service may also be provided, which would not require disclosure fees, simplifying the process for involved parties.

Sentiment

Overall sentiment surrounding SB 2072 appears to be favorable, with bipartisan support evident in the legislative votes: 81 in favor and 4 against in the House. The bill's straightforward approach to revising garnishment service procedures has garnered approval, as it seeks to simplify and clarify existing laws. However, discussions may surface around the implications of electronic service methods and how they will be implemented practically, reflecting the legislative body's consideration of modernization.

Contention

While SB 2072 has gained significant support, notable concerns may arise regarding the introduction of an optional electronic service method. Critics could argue that accessibility issues may be exacerbated if electronic methods are not adequately implemented, especially for individuals less familiar with technology. Furthermore, the established fees for garnishment service might raise concerns about the costs imposed on those seeking garnishment, which could be perceived as a barrier to accessing the legal system for some constituents. These points of contention highlight the balance between efficiency and equitable access to legal recourse.