Senate Judiciary Committee reviews S.109 technical fixes: powers of attorney, remote attorney access, public‑inebriation policy and other sections

The Senate Judiciary Committee spent several hours on March 12 reviewing proposed additions and technical clarifications to the miscellaneous Judiciary bill, S.109. Committee staff and outside witnesses discussed multiple discrete sections ranging from a validating provision for instruments signed under a missing power of attorney to a proposal to expand remote court‑record access for licensed Vermont attorneys.

James (Jim) Knapp, a retired attorney who described more than four decades of experience in property law and title insurance, urged the committee to adopt language that would validate instruments recorded at least 15 years ago even if the underlying power of attorney cannot be found. "If the instrument signed under a power of attorney has been on record for at least 15 years, then the document is valid even if the power of attorney can't be found," Knapp said, describing recurring title problems when a power of attorney was never recorded or was misindexed.

Supporters and other witnesses said the 15‑year period aligns with similar curative provisions in other states and with quiet‑title limitations. Chris Diodi, president of the Ontellus Association, told the committee his group supports the proposed language and said he was "comfortable with what Jen explained to you, the 15 year timeframe." Legal stakeholders at the hearing — including Liz Smith, managing counsel at Caddock (trade name referenced in testimony) — described the proposal as a routine market‑stability fix used in nearby states.

Committee counsel and staff walked members through additional proposed sections: clarifying when a court hearing is required for attorney‑fee claims in mortgage/foreclosure actions to align with the civil procedure rule tied to a 2 percent threshold; repeal of the Coordinated Justice Reform Advisory Council (a body created in 2023 with a deferred sunset date); and proposed language to permit licensed Vermont attorneys, in good standing, to access non‑public court records remotely through the judiciary's portal rather than only at courthouse terminals.

On remote access, staff described the proposal as limited to attorneys and subject to existing ethical rules and licensing checks. "Licensed Vermont attorneys in good standing shall be provided access via the Internet, through the judiciary's public portal website or other way," the committee was told by counsel for the judiciary. Committee members asked about safeguards and whether remote access would permit broad searching; witnesses said ethical and licensing guardrails apply and that the change would mirror what contract public defenders already can do from their offices.

Other sections drew policy and operational questions. Two connected sections would remove a long‑deferred prohibition on incarcerating a person solely for public inebriation — a clause repeatedly deferred in past years — effectively leaving current practice unchanged unless another body acts. Several senators expressed concern about relying on jails for safety or health triage and said the state should invest in alternatives rather than indefinitely deferring the provision. Committee members asked whether the language appears in related House or Senate bills and signaled a desire to coordinate across committees.

On weapon‑related language, the committee reviewed a proposal to eliminate a criminal penalty tied to a non‑defined "switchblade" term (possession of a blade three inches or more); staff recommended striking the ambiguous language and asked whether the committee wanted data on how often the statute is used. Members asked staff to check prosecution and expungement records before changing the statute.

Committee counsel also raised an inconsistency between statutes governing time limits for claims against decedents' estates: one provision in Title 14 provides a one‑year period while a separate procedural statute pauses the statute of limitations until an estate is opened. Counsel recommended additional stakeholder work before recommending a statutory fix and asked the probate judges and bar association to review options.

Sarah Robinson of the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence (testifying for the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Commission) asked the committee to include language directing a working group to study and strengthen implementation of existing firearms‑surrender orders. "The purpose is really to have a work group ... to look at how existing laws are being implemented, and how to strengthen implementation," Robinson said; Senator Ruth and other members expressed support for a limited, time‑bound working group that includes law enforcement, judiciary representatives, the Department of Corrections and federally licensed firearms dealers.

Committee members asked counsel to prepare a clean copy with the sections discussed and to coordinate follow‑up with the Attorney General's Office, the bar association, the Center for Justice Research and other stakeholders. The committee scheduled a walk‑through of the revised draft for the next meeting and asked staff to bring data on prosecutions under the switchblade provision (section 24) and to provide a corrected bill text for final consideration.

Votes at a glance: during the same hearing the committee also took a separate roll‑call on S.25 (agricultural trespass amendments) and voted to report S.25 favorably. The committee recorded several yes votes and at least one no vote during the S.25 roll call and the motion carried. The committee did not take a final committee vote on S.109 at this session; staff were directed to return with a clean draft and relevant data.