Texas House Bill HB397

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Filed: 12/12/08
• Out of House Committee: 5/6/09
• Voted on by House: 5/13/09
• Out of Senate Committee: 5/21/09

Caption

Relating to rules regarding return of service.

Impact

If enacted, HB 397 would significantly reshape the landscape of civil process serving in Texas by instituting a licensing system overseen by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. Individuals aspiring to serve civil process would need to undergo a specific training curriculum, as well as meet honesty and integrity requirements. This regulatory oversight aims to discourage malpractice in the serving of process, ensuring that only qualified and vetted individuals are permitted to perform these essential legal duties. Moreover, with this licensing requirement, the interactions between process servers and the public would be governed by stricter legal standards.

Summary

House Bill 397 aims to establish a regulatory framework for private process servers in Texas. The bill proposes amendments to the Civil Practice and Remedies Code by introducing provisions that require individuals serving civil processes to obtain a license. This move is intended to create standardized qualifications and training for process servers, thereby enhancing professionalism and accountability in the civil process serving industry. The bill details the definitions, requirements, and penalties associated with the practice of serving civil process, including necessary training and background checks for applicants.

Contention

There may be points of contention surrounding HB 397 regarding its implications for existing process servers who currently operate without licenses. Some might argue that the barriers to entry created by the licensing requirement could disproportionately impact smaller or less-resourced individuals, effectively narrowing the field of available process servers. Moreover, concerns might arise about the potential for increased costs to consumers as licensed servers may charge higher fees to cover costs associated with compliance and licensing. The balance of protecting the public through regulation while not overburdening the legal process with unnecessary bureaucratic measures will likely be a topic of debate as the bill is considered.