Texas 2019 - 86th Regular

Texas House Bill HB3292

Caption

Relating to sale-leaseback transactions.

Impact

The implementation of HB3292 will alter state laws to ensure that all sale-leaseback transactions entered into after the effective date will include stricter compliance with federal regulations regarding consumer debts. This change specifically applies to transactions initiated on or after September 1, 2019, ensuring that previous agreements are unaffected by the new provisions. By revising the definitions and adding consumer advisories, the bill aims to enhance transparency and fairness in financial dealings involving sale-leasebacks.

Summary

House Bill 3292 addresses the legal framework surrounding sale-leaseback transactions in Texas. It seeks to amend definitions within the Finance Code to clarify what constitutes a sale-leaseback transaction. Specifically, the bill emphasizes consumer protections in transactions where an individual sells personal property for personal use and then leases it back from the buyer. The intent of this legislation is to safeguard consumers from potentially predatory practices associated with these transactions, which can sometimes lead to deceptive agreements that disadvantage the seller after the sale.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB3292 appears to be generally supportive among consumer advocacy groups and legislators concerned with protecting individual rights in financial transactions. By focusing on consumer awareness and enforcement of regulations, supporters argue that the bill reinforces a commitment to responsible lending practices and consumer rights. However, some stakeholders in the financial sector may view the legislation as a potential hindrance to certain flexible financial arrangements, advocating for a balance between consumer protection and market fluidity.

Contention

Notably, the bill's contention stems from varying perspectives on consumer protection versus financial flexibility. Advocates for the bill believe that clamping down on sale-leaseback agreements will prevent consumer exploitation. In contrast, critics may argue that such legislation could complicate legitimate financial transactions and create unnecessary barriers. Additionally, there may be concerns about the operational implications for businesses involved in sale-leaseback transactions, with some fearing that increased regulation might limit their capacity to engage in these types of financial arrangements efficiently.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB618

Transactions and use taxes: City of Scotts Valley: City of Emeryville.

CA AB3259

Transactions and use taxes: City of Campbell: City of Pinole: County of Solano.

CA AB2598

Crimes: money laundering.

CA SB319

Criminal justice statistics: reporting.

CA SB703

Transactions and use taxes: Counties of Alameda and Santa Clara and City of Santa Fe Springs.

CA AB2443

Transactions and use taxes: Cities of Lancaster, Palmdale, and Victorville.

CA SB152

Transactions and use taxes: County of Sonoma.

CA SB335

Transactions and use taxes: County of Santa Clara.