Texas House Bill HB2595

Texas 2013 - 83rd Regular

Caption

Relating to the value of personal property that is exempt from seizure to pay a crime victim under an order of restitution.

Impact

The new stipulations lower the exemption amounts for personal property. Under the amended provisions, a family's personal property can only be valued at a maximum of $20,000, while personal property owned by a single adult not part of a family can have a maximum value of $10,000 to be exempt from seizure. The bill highlights a shift towards balancing the financial obligations of offenders with the need to protect victims' rights to restitution and reduce the burden on those who may not have significant assets. This legislative change reflects an understanding within the law of the financial realities faced by individuals ordered to pay restitution.

Summary

House Bill 2595 amends the Texas Property Code concerning the exemption of personal property from seizure to satisfy orders of restitution. Specifically, the bill outlines new values for personal property that is exempt from garnishment, attachment, execution, or other forms of seizure when enforcing orders of restitution issued under Article 42.037 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The changes aim to provide a degree of protection for personal property when individuals are subject to restitution orders, particularly in cases where the offense was committed after the bill's effective date, which is set for September 1, 2013.

Contention

One notable point of contention surrounding HB 2595 involves the implications of lowering the property exemption amounts. Advocates for victims' rights may support the legislation as it potentially increases the likelihood that victims receive payments owed to them. However, critics may argue that lowering exemption values could disproportionately impact lower-income individuals who may already struggle with financial stability. The current legislative landscape indicates a desire to enhance victims' rights, but there are also concerns regarding the financial viability for the offenders, particularly in cases of low-income households. This highlights a nuanced balance between supporting victims and not overburdening those who may already be in precarious financial situations.