Senate Judiciary committee reviews annual miscellaneous judiciary bill, clears S.12 by 4-1 vote

Eric Fitzpatrick, staff from the Office of Legislative Council, told the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday that the annual judiciary miscellaneous bill packages technical corrections and several minor substantive changes to multiple court and probate statutes.

The bill collects changes ranging from clarifying diversion program language and correcting cross-references to adjusting how certain civil judicial‑bureau descriptions read, aligning juvenile diversion language with last year’s Act 180, and proposing fixes to apparent conflicts in statutes of limitation for claims against decedents’ estates.

Fitzpatrick summarized section-by-section requests, many of which the Judiciary or outside practitioners submitted. He said section 1 clarifies diversion availability by inserting the word “available” to remove ambiguity about whether diversion applies statewide. He described a proposal to let the General Assembly determine the number of superior judges (replacing a fixed figure of 34) so future adjustments would not require statute renumbering. He said the judicial bureau statute text will be corrected to reflect that prohibitions related to minors and tobacco also cover procurement (purchase/obtaining), and that an offense currently described using criminal terminology (“fine”) will be corrected to refer to a civil penalty.

Fitzpatrick explained a judiciary request to limit a law‑enforcement officer’s authority to void judicial bureau complaints so the language is not read as an absolute, and a victims’ compensation board clarification requiring intervenors to show a physical injury to qualify for compensation. He said the statute governing stalking orders will be amended to treat service where a defendant appeared at a hearing the same way prior changes treated relief‑from‑abuse orders: if the defendant is in court and receives notice, the clerk may mail the order rather than require in‑person sheriff service.

On probate and tolling, Fitzpatrick outlined a reported conflict between a one‑year filing period after death and a separate tolling statute that pauses limitations until an estate is opened and then allows two years after opening to bring claims. He said the office circulated draft language to probate judges for comment and is awaiting feedback: “I actually sent it to Judge Kilgore as well. Just trying to get some feedback as to…what the thought on this apparent conflict is and how might we address it.”

The walk‑through also covered technical fixes to the Uniform Power of Attorney Act model form (duplicate lines corrected), insertion of a missing preposition in the Uniform Directed Trust Act provisions, correction of an incorrect cross‑reference to a statute on defacing firearm serial numbers, and a proposed revision to title‑record validation to add a new 15‑year provision that validates certain deeds even if the underlying power of attorney is not recorded.

Fitzpatrick described alignment of the juvenile statutes with Act 180’s pre‑charge diversion language: “The juvenile diversion program may accept referrals pre charged by law enforcement or prosecutors where a child or a youth has committed any criminal offense or delinquency,” language he read to the committee and said the bill adds to the juvenile code so prosecutors can so refer children to approved community providers without filing charges.

Committee members raised implementation and policy questions rather than offering competing proposals. Senator Morris asked whether a defendant physically present at a hearing would still receive a copy of an order; Fitzpatrick suggested that in practice clerks or sheriffs might provide a copy and recommended practitioners be asked. Senator Bogoski asked how the one‑year and two‑year/tolling rules would treat claimants who did not know of a death; Fitzpatrick noted the discovery rule and reiterated that judges and probate practitioners had been asked for guidance.

Several items were identified as pending: additional language expected from the judiciary and from outside stakeholders on guardianship background checks, elevated Odyssey access for private criminal attorneys, recidivism definition changes, utility/knife definition updates, and a potential Good Samaritan immigration reporting change. Fitzpatrick said some of those requests arrived late and would be circulated when available.

Before beginning the walk‑through, the committee voted to report S.12 favorably to the full body. The roll call was: Senator Norris — yes; Senator Vyhovsky — no; Senator Baruth — yes; Senator Meadows — yes; Senator Hashim — yes (tally: 4 yes, 1 no). Fitzpatrick and members agreed to introduce the miscellaneous bill as currently drafted and consider proposed amendments when additional language is ready.

The committee paused the meeting to allow senators to vote on other matters and to collect additional drafting language that may be incorporated into the miscellaneous bill. Fitzpatrick said several changes cannot take effect before July 1 because they must align with Act 180’s effective date.

The walk‑through will continue when updated language is filed; several committee members signaled they expect to hold witnesses (bar association, title company, bankers) on items such as the 15‑year title validation proposal to collect more context and possible alternatives.