AB 898 California Assembly · 2009-2010 Regular Session

Documents: notaries public: solicitations.

Summary
(1) Existing law makes it unlawful for a nongovernmental entity to solicit funds or information by means of a mailing, electronic message, or Internet Web site that contains a seal, insignia, trade, or brand name, or any other term or symbol that reasonably could be interpreted or construed as implying any state or local government connection, approval, or endorsement, unless the nongovernmental entity has an expressed connection with a state or local entity or unless the solicitation contains specified disclosures in conspicuous and legible type. Existing law requires a business to include the contact information for a referenced governmental agency in an unsolicited mailing that offers to assist the recipient in dealing with the governmental agency. A violation of these or other provisions related to advertising is a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding 6 months, a fine not exceeding $1,000, or both. This bill would additionally make it unlawful for a nongovernmental entity to solicit funds or information by any of those means that contains an emblem or content that reasonably could be interpreted or construed as implying any federal state, or local government connection, approval, or endorsement, unless the nongovernmental entity has an expressed connection with a federal, state or local entity or unless the solicitation contains the specified disclosures and meets other requirements. The bill would require the disclosures to be conspicuously displayed in specified locations, type, and manner. The bill would increase the maximum criminal fine for a violation of these provisions to $2,500 and would authorize a person to recover specified damages resulting from a violation of these provisions. The bill would delete the provisions requiring a business to include the contact information for a referenced governmental agency in an unsolicited mailing that offers to assist the recipient in dealing with the governmental agency. Existing law makes it unlawful for a person to make any untrue or misleading statements in any manner in connection with the offering or performance of an assessment reduction filing service. Existing law provides that an untrue or misleading statement includes representing that an offeror of an assessment reduction filing service is, or is affiliated with, any governmental entity by, among other things, the use of a business name including the word "appeal" or "tax" and any of a list of terms, including "agency," "bureau," or "department." This bill would provide that it is also an untrue or misleading statement in connection with the offering or performance of an assessment reduction filing service if the words "board" or "commission" are used with the word "appeal" or "tax" in the business name of an assessment reduction filing service. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law authorizes proof of the execution of an instrument by certain persons and prescribes the form for that proof. Existing law prohibits a proof of the execution of any of several types of specified instruments, including a grant deed, mortgage, deed of trust, quitclaim deed, or security agreement. This bill would add a power of attorney to the types of instruments for which a proof of the execution is prohibited and would further prohibit a proof of the execution for any instrument requiring a notary public to obtain a thumbprint from the party signing the document in the notary public's journal. The bill would also revise the form of certificate that may be used for proof of execution. (3) Existing law prescribes the duties of a notary public, including the duty to demand acceptance and payment of foreign and inland bills of exchange, or promissory notes, to protest them for nonacceptance or nonpayment, and to exercise any other powers and duties that by the law of nations and according to commercial usages, or by the laws of any other state, government, or country, may be performed by notaries. Existing law provides that a protest is a certificate of dishonor of a negotiable instrument made by, among others, a notary public. Existing law provides that the protest of a notary public of a bill of exchange or promissory note for nonacceptance or nonpayment is prima facie evidence of the facts recited therein. The bill would limit the application of these provisions to a notary public employed by a financial institution, during the course and scope of the notary's employment with the financial institution. (4) Existing law prescribes the maximum fees a notary public may charge for specified services. The bill would delete the prescribed maximum fees for every protest for the nonpayment of a promissory note or for the nonpayment or nonacceptance of a bill of exchange, draft, or check, for serving every notice of nonpayment of a promissory note or of nonpayment or nonacceptance of a bill of exchange, order, draft, or check, and for recording every protest. (5) Existing law sets forth the fees the Secretary of State is authorized to charge for the provision of specified business services. The bill would authorize the Secretary of State's office to refuse to perform a service or refuse a filing based on a reasonable belief that the service or filing is being requested for any of a number of specified improper purposes. (6) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill status vetoed 4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
Jun 2010
Assembly Passage
May 2009
Senate Passage
Aug 2010
Vetoed
Sep 2010
Introduced Feb 26, 2009 Vetoed Sep 30, 2010
Floor votes · Senate Aug 11, 2010 · Assembly May 21, 2009

How they voted

29–3
Passed · 5 other
Total votes 37
Aug 11, 2010
D Democratic25
21 Yea 4
84% Yea
R Republican12
8 Yea 3 Nay 1
66% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea All Nay Mixed No data
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
33
Key actions
10
Committee
9
Amendments
5
Sep 30, 2010
Vetoed
Vetoed by Governor.
lower
Aug 17, 2010
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 53. Noes 24. Page 6298.)
lower
Aug 11, 2010
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (29-3-5)
senate
Aug 11, 2010
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 13 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Jun 29, 2010
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
upper
Jun 22, 2010
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Mar 23, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR. pursuant to Joint Rule 10.5.
upper
Jun 30, 2009
Upper · Passed
Read second time, amended, and to third reading.
upper
Jun 29, 2009
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 4. Noes 1.) (June 23).
upper
Jun 9, 2009
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
upper
Jun 4, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
May 21, 2009
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (42-27-1)
assembly
May 5, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 4.) (May 5).
lower
Apr 21, 2009
Lower · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Apr 14, 2009
Lower · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Mar 26, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on B. & P.
lower
Feb 27, 2009
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 29.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors

Sponsors

Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Photo of Ted Lieu
Ted Lieu
DDemocratic
CA
28