Existing law provides that a marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state. Existing case law provides that, while on and after November 5, 2008, only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, marriages of same-sex couples that were performed prior to November 5, 2008, are valid. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a marriage between 2 persons of the same sex contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state if the marriage was contracted prior to November 5, 2008. Existing case law also recognizes that while, effective November 5, 2008, same-sex couples lack the right to enter into a relationship designated "marriage," they possess the right to the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage, including, the opportunity of an individual to establish an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. This bill would specify that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 2 persons of the same sex who contracted a marriage on or after November 5, 2008, that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, as specified, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses with the sole exception of the designation of "marriage."
Sponsored bills
Existing law, the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983, establishes, under the jurisdiction of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, a program of seismic safety building standards for certain hospitals constructed on and after March 7, 1973. Existing law authorizes the office to assess an application fee for the review of facilities design and construction, and requires that full and complete plans be submitted to the office for review and approval. Existing law requires that, after January 1, 2008, any general acute care hospital building that is determined to be at potential risk of collapse or pose significant loss of life be used only for nonacute care hospital purposes, except that the office may grant a 5-year extension under prescribed circumstances. Existing law also allows the office to grant an additional 2-year extension to the January 2008 deadline in specified circumstances. This bill would also allow the office to grant the additional 2-year extension for a hospital building that, among other requirements, is owned by a health care district that has, as owner, received the extension of the January 1, 2008, deadline, but where the hospital is operated by an unaffiliated 3rd-party lessee pursuant to a facility lease that extends at least through December 31, 2009, if the health care district requests the additional extension by March 1, 2010. This bill would require the district to file a declaration stating specified information as a condition for receiving the extension. This bill would prohibit the office from granting the extension if an unaffiliated 3rd-party lessee will operate the hospital beyond December 31, 2010, and would make the extension applicable only while the hospital is operated by the district or an entity under the control of the district. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the California Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of residential care facilities for the elderly by the State Department of Social Services. Under existing law, a violation of these provisions is a crime. Existing law sets forth notice and other requirements for a residential care facility for the elderly to evict a resident. This bill would, in addition, require that a licensee who sends an eviction notice to include specified information, including, but not limited to, information regarding the resident's right to file a complaint. By expanding the definition of an existing crime, this bill would impose 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.
The Personal Income Tax Law allows taxpayers, until January 1, 2010, to contribute amounts in excess of their tax liability for the support of the California Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Research Fund. This bill would extend the operation of those contribution provisions to January 1, 2015.
(1) Existing law requires a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle to be suspended or revoked for a specified period of time if the person has been convicted of violating specified provisions prohibiting driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or drug, or the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and drug, or with 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood, or who is addicted to the use of any drug. Existing law authorizes a person whose privilege is suspended or revoked in that manner to receive a restricted driver's license if specified requirements are met, including, in some instances, the installation of a certified ignition interlock device on the person's vehicle. Existing law requires that a person, convicted of driving under the influence, without bodily injury to another, within 10 years of being convicted of a separate violation of one of specified driving-under-the-influence offenses, be punished by his or her driving privilege being suspended for 2 years. The Department of Motor Vehicles is required to advise the person that he or she may apply for a restricted driver's license after completion of 12 months of the suspension period, which may include credit for a specified concurrent suspension, subject to certain conditions, including, among other things, submitting proof of installation of a certified ignition interlock device, agreeing to maintain the ignition interlock device, and paying certain fees, including, but not limited to, all administrative fees or reissue fees. This bill would instead require the department to advise a person, who was only under the influence of an alcoholic beverage at the time of the violation, that he or she may apply for a restricted driver's license after completion of 90 days of the suspension period, under certain circumstances. (2) Existing law requires that a person convicted of driving under the influence, without bodily injury to another, within 10 years of being convicted of 2 separate violations of specified driving-under-the-influence offenses, be punished by his or her driving privilege being revoked for 3 years. The department is required to advise the person that he or she may apply for a restricted driver's license after completion of 12 months of the revocation period, which may include credit for a specified concurrent suspension, subject to certain conditions, including, among other things, satisfactory completion of 12 months of an 18-month or 30-month driving-under-the-influence program, submitting proof of installation of a certified ignition interlock device, agreeing to maintain the ignition interlock device, and paying certain fees. This bill would instead require the department to advise a person, who was found to be only under the influence of an alcoholic beverage at the time of the violation, of his or her ability to apply for a restricted driver's license after completion of 6 months of the revocation period, subject to certain conditions, including that if the person is convicted of a specified offense that person subsequently satisfactorily provides proof of enrollment in an 18-month or 30-month driving-under-the-influence program, as prescribed. The bill would require the person to pay a fee sufficient to cover the costs of administration, as determined by the department. (3) This bill would require that a person convicted of driving under the influence of any drug or the combined influence of any drug and an alcoholic beverage, without bodily injury to another, within 10 years of being convicted of a separate violation of one of the specified driving-under-the-influence offenses, be punished by his or her driving privilege being revoked for 2 years. This bill would authorize the department to reinstate the privilege provided certain conditions are met. This bill would require the department to advise the person that he or she may apply for a restricted driver's license after completion of 12 months of the suspended period, subject to certain conditions including, among other things, that the person provides proof of enrollment in an 18-month or 30-month driving-under-the-influence program, as prescribed. (4) This bill would also require a person convicted of driving under the influence of any drug or the combined influence of any drug and an alcoholic beverage, without bodily injury to another, within 10 years of being convicted of 2 separate violations of specified driving-under-the-influence offenses, be punished by his or her driving privilege being revoked for 3 years. This bill would authorize the department to reinstate the privilege provided certain conditions are met. This bill would require the department to advise the person that he or she may apply for a restricted driver's license after completion of 12 months of the suspended period, subject to certain conditions, including, among other things, that the person has satisfactorily completed the initial 12 months of an 18-month or 30-month driving-under-the-influence program as prescribed. (5) This bill would make other conforming changes. (6) This bill would become operative on July 1, 2010.
(1) The Real Estate Law provides for the licensure and regulation of real estate brokers and salespersons by the Real Estate Commissioner. Existing law authorizes the commissioner to suspend or revoke the license of a real estate licensee or corporation, or to deny the issuance of a license to an applicant or corporation, for specified violations. This bill would further authorize the commissioner to suspend or revoke those licenses, or to deny issuance of those licenses, upon a violation of specified federal lending laws or regulations or upon the violation or failure to comply with specified provisions of state law relating to mortgages. (2) Existing law imposes certain limitations and prohibitions on licensed persons, as defined, with respect to the making of a covered loan, defined as a consumer loan in which the original principal balance of the loan does not exceed the most current conforming loan limit for a single-family first mortgage loan established by the Federal National Mortgage Association in the case of a mortgage or deed of trust, and as specified. Existing law does not regulate or define the term "higher-priced mortgage loan." This bill would establish "higher-priced mortgage loans," as defined, as a new category of regulated loans. The bill would, among other things, limit prepayment penalties and prohibit provisions for negative amortization. The bill would prohibit a licensed person, as defined, from making false, deceptive, or misleading statements or representations in connection with higher-priced mortgage loans. The bill would also, among other things, prohibit a mortgage broker, as defined, who arranges higher-priced mortgage loans with prepayment penalties from receiving a compensation that exceeds certain amounts. The bill would provide that a violation of the provisions regulating higher-priced mortgage loans by a licensed person is also a violation of the person's licensing law. The bill would authorize a licensing agency or the Attorney General to enforce the provisions regulating higher-priced mortgage loans. The bill would authorize civil penalties in an amount up to $10,000 against a licensed person who willfully and knowingly violates the provisions regulating higher-priced mortgage loans, and would nullify prepayment penalties or yield spread premiums that violate these provisions. The bill would also establish specified duties for mortgage brokers performing mortgage brokerage services for higher-priced mortgage loans. The bill's provisions would apply to higher-priced mortgage loans originated on or after July 1, 2010. (3) Existing law imposes certain limitations and prohibitions on specified licensees, including commercial banks, credit unions, finance lenders, and residential mortgage lenders, with respect to the making of consumer loans. This bill would provide that a violation of specified federal lending laws or regulations by those licensees is also a violation of the licensing law of the licensee. The bill would also provide that a mortgage broker, as defined, providing mortgage brokerage services, as defined, to a borrower is the fiduciary of the borrower, and any violation of the broker's fiduciary duties is a violation of the mortgage broker's licensing law and specified civil penalty and liability provisions. The bill would further provide that this fiduciary duty includes a requirement that the mortgage broker place the economic interest of the borrower ahead of his or her own economic interest. (4) Because a violation of the bill's provisions by certain licensees may be punished as crimes under the licensing law of the licensees, the bill would impose 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.
Under existing law, a person required to register as a sex offender who applies for or accepts a position as an employee or volunteer with any person, group, or organization where he or she would be working directly and in an unaccompanied setting with minor children on a regular basis, is required to disclose his or her registrant status, as specified. Existing law also prohibits a person required to register as a sex offender because of a conviction for a crime where the victim was a minor under 16 years of age from being an employer, employee, or independent contractor, or acting as a volunteer with any person, group, or organization in a capacity in which the registrant would be working directly and in an unaccompanied setting with minor children on more than an incidental and occasional basis or from having supervision or disciplinary power over minor children. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor. This bill would specify that "working directly and in an unaccompanied setting" includes, but is not limited to, providing goods or services to minors. Because the bill would change the scope of an existing crime, it would impose 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law requires that an action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission, other than for actual fraud, arising in the performance of professional services must be commenced within one year after the plaintiff discovers, or should have discovered, the wrongful act or omission, or 4 years from the date of the wrongful act or omission, whichever occurs first. This bill would provide that, if the plaintiff is required to establish his or her factual innocence for an underlying criminal charge as an element of his or her claim against an attorney, the time period to commence this action shall be 2 years after the plaintiff achieves postconviction exoneration in the form of a final judicial disposition of the criminal case. Existing law provides that any finding that an arrestee is factually innocent, as specified, shall not be admissible as evidence in any action. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding this provision, a finding that an arrestee is factually innocent shall be admissible as evidence at a hearing before the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. Existing law allows a presiding judge, whenever a person is acquitted of a charge and it appears to the judge that the defendant is factually innocent of the charge, to order that the records in the case be sealed. This bill would require a judge, upon written or oral motion of any party in the case or the court, to order that the records in a case be sealed whenever a person is convicted of a charge and the conviction is set aside because a determination was made that the person was factually innocent. Existing law allows a person erroneously convicted and imprisoned to present a claim within a period of 6 months after judgment of acquittal or discharge given, or after pardon granted, or after release from imprisonment, against the state to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board for the pecuniary injury sustained by him or her through the erroneous conviction and imprisonment. This bill would instead provide that a person erroneously convicted and imprisoned may present this claim within 2 years. Existing law establishes a process for a hearing on an erroneously convicted person's claim at which the claimant is required to introduce evidence in support of the claim and the Attorney General may introduce evidence in opposition. Existing law requires the claimant to prove the facts set forth in the statement constituting the claim, including that the crime charged was either not committed at all, or, if committed, not committed by the claimant, and the fact that the claimant did not, by any act or omission, either intentionally or negligently, contribute to the bringing about of his or her arrest or conviction, and that he or she sustained pecuniary injury. If the evidence shows that the claimant has proved these facts, existing law requires the board to recommend to the Legislature that an appropriation be made for indemnifying the claimant. This bill would remove the requirement on the claimant to prove that he or she did not negligently contribute to his or her arrest or conviction. The bill would provide that when determining whether the claimant intentionally contributed to the bringing about of his or her arrest or conviction, the factfinder shall not consider statements obtained from an involuntary false confession or involuntary plea. The bill would provide that the claimant shall bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the statements were obtained from an involuntary false confession or involuntary plea.
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations, as defined. Existing law authorizes the City and County of San Francisco to elect to designate specific photovoltaic electricity generation facilities meeting specified conditions as Hetch Hetchy Water and Power (HHWP) at-site solar generation, as defined, and HHWP remote solar generation, as defined. Existing law requires that upon election and the filing and acceptance of an advice letter with the commission establishing rates, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is required on a monthly basis, to credit the City and County of San Francisco for certain electricity generated and delivered to the electric grid by HHWP at-site solar generation in accordance with specified rate criteria. Existing law additionally authorizes the City and County of San Francisco to elect to designate specific photovoltaic electricity generation facilities as HHWP remote solar generation to supply electricity to qualifying remote load by designating those facilities to be served by HHWP remote solar generation. Existing law requires that PG&E accept any electricity exported to the grid by HHWP remote solar generation, up to the amount of electricity contemporaneously being used by the qualifying remote load, and treat the electricity accepted as behind the meter generation that offsets the electrical usage of qualifying remote load. Existing law requires that where the separate or remote sites are outside the City and County of San Francisco, they be located within 20 miles of the City and County of San Francisco or within 20 miles of an HHWP remote solar generation facility. This bill would authorize the City and County of San Francisco to elect to designate specific renewable electricity generation facilities, as defined, as HHWP at-site renewable generation and HHWP remote renewable generation. The bill would authorize the City and County of San Francisco to elect to designate specific renewable electricity generation facilities or a portion of specific renewable electricity generation facilities as HHWP remote renewable generation to supply electricity to qualifying remote load by designating those facilities to be served by HHWP remote renewable generation. The bill would require that PG&E accept any electricity exported to the grid by HHWP remote renewable generation, up to the amount of electricity being used during the corresponding time period by the qualifying remote load, and to treat the electricity accepted as behind the meter generation that offsets the electrical usage of qualifying remote load. The bill would declare that, due to the special circumstances applicable only to HHWP renewable generation facilities, a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution, and the enactment of a special statute is therefore necessary.