SB 956 California Senate · 2011-2012 Regular Session

Buy-here-pay-here automobile sellers and lenders.

Summary
(1) Existing law prohibits a person from acting as a dealer in vehicles, as specified, without a license issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Existing law governs conditional sale contracts, as defined, for the purchase of motor vehicles, including the enforceability of those contracts. Existing law also governs lease contracts, as defined, for the lease of motor vehicles, including the enforceability of those contracts. Existing law, the California Finance Lenders Law, the violation of which is a crime, provides for the licensure and regulation of finance lenders by the Commissioner of Corporations, but exempts from its provisions a bona fide conditional contract of sale involving the disposition of personal property when that form of agreement is not used for the purpose of evading provisions of that law. This bill would enact the Buy-Here-Pay-Here Automobile Dealers Act. The bill would define a "buy-here-pay-here" dealer as a dealer, as defined, who enters into conditional sale contracts, as defined, or lease contracts, as defined, and assigns less than 90% of all unrescinded contracts to an unaffiliated 3rd-party finance or leasing source, within 45 days of the consummation of those contracts. The bill would exclude from this definition automobile sellers who meet specified requirements. This bill would require those dealers to obtain a finance lender license and subject them to specified other provisions of the California Finance Lenders Law. The bill would also define a "buyer-borrower" as a person who enters into a conditional sale contract or lease contract with a buy-here-pay-here automobile dealer. The bill would provide that the Department of Corporations would have regulatory jurisdiction over the lending and repossessing activities of buy-here-pay-here automobile dealers, as specified. This bill would govern the terms and conditions of contracts entered into by a buy-here-pay-here automobile dealer and the rights of the parties, including, but not limited to, requiring a notice to a buyer-borrower of specified rights under the contract. (2) Existing law, the Collateral Recovery Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of repossession agencies, as defined, and their employees by the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services within the Department of Consumer Affairs. This bill would impose additional requirements on a buy-here-pay-here automobile dealer seeking to repossess a vehicle, including, but not limited to, prohibiting a dealer from commencing repossession proceedings due to failure to make a scheduled loan payment prior to the 16th day following the day on which that payment was due, requiring a dealer to hire a licensed repossession agency to repossess the vehicle on the dealer's behalf, and prohibiting the dealer from charging the buyer-borrower a fee exceeding $500 for the dealer's costs in connection with the repossession. The bill would also establish a cap on interest rates that could be charged under a conditional sale or lease contract and require a buy-here-pay-here automobile dealer to allow a buyer-borrower 45 days to repay any penalties, fees, and other charges imposed by the dealer on the buyer-borrower in connection with past due payments that have been brought current. (3) The bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature with regard to buy-here-pay-here automobile dealers. (4) Because this bill would expand the scope of a crime, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. 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
Jan 2012
Committee Review
Aug 2012
Senate Passage
May 2012
Assembly Passage
Aug 2012
Vetoed
Sep 2012
Introduced Jan 9, 2012 Vetoed Sep 29, 2012
Floor votes · Assembly Aug 28, 2012

How they voted

4425
Passed · 1 other
Total votes 70
Aug 28, 2012
D Democratic44
43 Yea 1
97% Yea
R Republican26
1 Yea 25 Nay
96% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea All Nay Mixed No data
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
39
Key actions
7
Committee
8
Amendments
4
Sep 29, 2012
Vetoed
In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
upper
Sep 29, 2012
Vetoed
Vetoed by the Governor.
upper
Aug 30, 2012
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 23. Noes 14. Page 5010.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Aug 28, 2012
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (44-25-1)
assembly
Aug 28, 2012
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Aug 16, 2012
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (August 16).
lower
Aug 8, 2012
Committee
Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Jul 5, 2012
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 3.) (July 3).
lower
Jun 26, 2012
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.) (June 25). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Jun 14, 2012
Committee
Referred to Coms. on B. & F. and JUD.
lower
May 24, 2012
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 3588.) (May 24).
upper
Apr 30, 2012
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 3. Noes 2. Page 3309.) (April 24).
upper
Apr 18, 2012
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 3204.) (April 18). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Apr 4, 2012
Upper · Passed
Hearing postponed by committee.
upper
Feb 2, 2012
Committee
Referred to Coms. on B. & F.I. and JUD.
upper
Jan 9, 2012
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 4 co-sponsors

Sponsors