S.B. 109 Alienation of Affection Amendments: transcript

Oh, there we go. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I really am surprised and impressed at how much interest there is in my alienation of affection, bill. Um, so I don't know how to sugarcoat this, but in medieval times, um, women were considered chattel or property of their husbands. And if someone else had sex with them, then they owed money to the husband because they had essentially used their property. And that offensive, outdated medieval concept is the genesis of a tort, um, known as Alienation of Affection. And the idea of this tort is, is that someone else, um, has a relationship, a sexual relationship with your spouse, that you can sue them and ask for money damages. And I was asked by some members of the bar, some family law attorneys to, um, run a bill to, um, legislatively end the recognition of this tort in Utah. And I was a little bit shocked to find out that Utah was only one of like six states that hadn't banned it. Um, and so this bill would end alienation of, of, of affection. I do have a substitute or a, um, an amendment online, a substitute. A substitute. And let me explain what that would do. So this would've, this would've ended it as of may, you know, in two months, basically. And I did get some feedback from members of the bar saying, well, wait a second, you know, if you're gonna change the law and pull the carpet out from underneath, uh, underneath us, give us a little bit more time. And so the sub would push back that date until May 5th, 2027, which is when the bills from the 2027 session will take effect, and it changes it from anything not filed before that date. And so, um, I will tell you, as a practicing attorney, um, it's my perception, and we have one retired judge, at least in the audience, that judges don't like these cases. They don't really want to li they don't really want to litigate them, and they'll often find a way to dismiss them. Um, furthermore, um, most attorneys that I know will not take this type of case. And the reason is, is they're almost exclusively filed as revenge or of vindictive. Oh, you, you're divorcing me. Well, I'm gonna sue you and I'm gonna sue your girlfriend, sort of thing. Um, and it, it doesn't really help in settling cases. Um, uh, which, you know, the, the, the, the, the more cases we don't settle, the more clogged up our court system becomes. And so, um, I'm not sure what, I haven't set up any public testimony, but, um, I don't know that we need to follow what every other state does. But in this particular instance, I think the vast majority of states have gotten it right. This is something that we should not be litigating in our courts in 2026. It may have made sense at some point. Um, I don't think it makes sense today. And that concludes my presentation.

Already explained. Yeah, well, let me just do that. Let just move to delete, um, Senate Bill 1 0 9 and then Title and Body and replace it with first substitute Senate Bill 1 0 9. And I've already explained it, just pushes it back a year and then some.

I I just have one last point. Sure. This substitute may actually spur an increase in filings. 'cause people are gonna realize if I don't file this in the next 14 months, I never can. I think that's okay. Um, um, because I think if we're going to change what's been decades long tradition of allowing these cases, we ought to give some notice. So, so it may in the short run spur, um, uh, you know, a few more cases being filed. But, but then as of May 5th, 2027, the court shouldn't accept, or they, they should immediately dismiss any cases filed after then.

Marice Jones, director of the Victim Services Commission. We appreciate Senator Weiler, um, ire appreciate him whether we agree or disagree on things. And we, and I, what I appreciate most is he's always open to good conversation, good discussion, and, and looking at perspectives. We do support this. That's quite the testimony. She's, I know. I was like, oh, Is that kind of like a mic drop? No. Uh, we do support this bill, and the reason being, as the senator, um, indicated the historic, uh, imbalance of, of power, um, in relationships. And so this can be at play in relationships where there's domestic violence, which is why we took an interest in it. And we do support it and appreciate the effort.

Thank, thank you. Um, I move that we favorably recommend Senate Bill 1 0 9 as substitute. Um, that's appropriate so that I'm recognizing the motion to approve first substitute SE, Senate Bill 1 0 9 as presented.

I'll waive summation. Waive summation some, um, any remarks I'll waive as well? Waive

Thank you. Mr. Chair, is this microphone on? Yes. Alright, thank you Mr. Chair. Um, Senate Bill 1 0 9, um, is, is, it's not a companion bill to the common law marriage bill that you heard last week, but, um, I was approached by the same group of attorneys and asked to run both bills, uh, for the sim for similar reasons. Um, this bill, um, can, would ban a common law cause of action that is often threatened, but is rarely filed and is rarely successful in Utah. But because it's threatened, it's often used as a tactic to try to extract more money in a, in a settlement of a divorce, usually in, in mediation. And, um, uh, it, it does stem from an archaic concept, uh, where the, in medieval times the, uh, a woman was considered chattel or property of her husband. And so if another man used that woman, IE had sex with her, that they somehow owed compensation to the owner of the woman or her husband. That is, uh, the undisputed, um, origin of this common law, um, action for alienation of affection. Now, of course, that's changed over the years. Um, no one believes anymore. No one should believe anymore that a woman is property of, of her husband. And of course, um, that door swings both ways today. So a man can sue, uh, another man for having an affair with his wife, and a woman can sue, uh, um, another woman for having an affair with her husband. Um, but, uh, it's interesting, I had a constituent who contacted me a few months ago, uh, before I had decided to run this bill, and she was complaining that she wanted to sue the woman, um, who was, um, with her husband. She was going through a contested divorce that's been going on for a couple years, and she said she'd called several attorneys and nobody wanted to file this alienation of affection claim. By the way, we, we hear the term parental alienation. This is not dealing with parental alienation where one parent is claiming that the other parent is trying to turn the kids away from them. This is only dealing with suing someone that's basically having an affair with your spouse. Anyway, so I, I told her that I wasn't interested, that I didn't know any attorneys who would be interested in filing this type of case. I told her that most judges, um, find these cases, um, kind of petty and revengeful and vindictive and, um, they usually find a way to dismiss them. But I told her I was in a Facebook group and I, I think, um, Representative Loubet may be in that group. I know Senator Brammer in that group I was in, I I'm in a Facebook group with, uh, several hundred attorneys. And so I went and posted in there and said, you know, basically said she was looking for an attorney to sue the, you know, paramore of her husband. And the comments on that thread, I won't show 'em to you, but like, it was like, oh my gosh, run. I would never do this. But I did find one attorney in St. George, who was willing to take the case, and I referred, uh, her to him. And I tell that to you because most attorneys will not take these cases. And I was, I was kind of shocked at the vitriol, you know, in that Facebook group, it, it is just an attorney Facebook group. So, uh, of people saying, you know, why, why would anybody file this? And you might be saying, well, if Todd, if these senator, if these are rarely filed, and if judges don't like them, why should we ban 'em? And and the reason, um, I would give is because a, I I still think that the whole idea, it's still rooted in this medieval concept that if your, um, husband or wife has an affair, it's somehow the other person's fault. It, it kind of, um, dismisses the fact that we're all individual agents. We all have free, will we all have decisions to act for ourself? And now, no, it's just that little hussey's fault that, you know, my husband's stepping out and as a, as a person who's been doing divorces for three decades now, close to three decades now, I can tell you, um, as an attorney, I've had a closeup look into hundreds of, of, of marital relationships that fell apart. And the the one takeaway that I tell a lot of people is, a lot of couples can work through an affair. Um, but also a lot of affairs are usually symptoms of other problems in the marriage. You know, if, if somebody, um, has a, if somebody has a, a poor marriage, I think they're more open to having an affair If they have a strong marriage. I think, you know, when they get the advances, they might be, Hey, I'm flattered, but no, you know, I'm not interested. And of course, every every couple is different, every person's different, every dynamic's different. And so, um, I will tell you that, uh, 44 other states, uh, have banned alienation of affection actions. So Utah is a extreme outlier. Uh, we're, we're one of only six states. And of those six states that allow them, it seems like only North Carolina really likes them. Uh, there was a big, um, TikTok, uh, case where TikTok, her influence, I think influencer had an affair with her manager last year, and her husband sued and, and got over a million dollar judgment. But other states like New Mexico and Hawaii, uh, you don't see a lot of action in these. Um, rod Arquette called this bill the, um, house, house house record bill. Somehow I'm trying to, um, encourage people to have affairs by banning this cause of action. And I just wanna address that. I think that's a silly, I think that's a silly point. I I don't think that there is a deterrent effect. I don't think there are people in Utah that say, gosh, I would have an affair, but darn it, you know, the person who I have an affair with could get sued by my spouse. So I guess I'll just be faithful and loyal to the person I married. I I don't think that that is a, a real deterrent in the state. And I don't think we're any way awarding home records by saying that this is an antiquated archaic law and, and it should be put, uh, put to bed. Um, so that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Couple questions. I, first of all, I'll say I appreciate how short this bill is. I like that. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I'm wondering why you reserved parts for definitions, but then I heard your presentation and I understand maybe later you need to add hussy homewrecker, um, Rodar cat, So I appreciate that. Yeah. My question is, how many, uh, successful causes of action have there been in Utah, say in the past 20, 30 years? I

don't, I don't have that data, but I think it, uh, um, I, I don't know if Mr. Drexel's standing behind me. I don't think a lot of these are actually litigated to trial. Um, I think a lot of 'em are. Um, I, I think, I think the vast majority are threatened and not filed. I think the ones that are filed are either dismissed through motion or, um, or settled. Um, I don't think a lot of these proceed to trial, but that, that's just my sense in talking to my own practice and talking to other attorneys. Thank you. I, I can't point to one, I can't point to one that I know of in Utah.

Yeah. Um, I was just wondering about that because I mean, just Googling, I saw three cases that Uintah the Utah Supreme Court where they upheld it over and over. Yeah.

So No, no, no. I'm not suggesting that the Supreme Court wouldn't uphold it. It, it, it, it's a cause of action that goes back over a thousand years to to Great Britain. Um, so I'm not challenging that. I'm, I'm, I'm, this is more of a policy discussion. Um, is this something, do, do we want to encourage our residents to file vindictive petty revengeful litigation? Um, and, and I think the answer to that should be no. So I, the, the question I had was that, um, it seems like when the Supreme Court ruled before they talked about it as, um, similar to harms caused by intentional interference for like other wrong civil, wrong, like negligent interference with economic relations. So I'm just wondering how you would think that those don't correlate or should correlate. Like if the Supreme Court said that, then why would you think maybe that's different? So judges will do what judges do, and so if I, I mean, so, so I think in the cases that you're reviewing, I think the other side has said, uh, has argued this is something the court shouldn't recognize. And, and they've, and then the court is saying, well, uh, we can recognize them. So I, I'm not disputing that this is a valid cause of action in Utah. Um, what I'm saying is there's a reason that 44 other states have said, we don't wanna clog up our courts with this type of unpleasantness. Uh, and so yes, EE everything the court, I think has said is, is legally valid. Um, the question is, is, is this the type of, um, is this, is this the type of case that we want to allow in our courtrooms? And, and for the reasons I've said, I, I, I think it's, it's one that we should take a hard pass on.

Okay. I appreciate that. I think, you know, just because the Supreme Court has talked about when they've ruled that, you know, it's not necessarily designed to preserve marriages, but just to realize that, you know, there is an actual loss and to com compensate them for those losses suffer due to the interferon. So, um, anyway, I am probably more in favor of keeping our common law history, so thank you.

Thank you. So is this only limiting that someone could come back later after the divorce and claim this alienation of affection and sue the other party? Or is this involved in the divorce litigation with the spouse?

Um, I, I believe that the answer is, it could be either or or both, or simultaneous. Um, um, and, uh, I, I think it's often when it's threatened, it's often threatened as part of the settlement of the divorce, but it hasn't been filed yet, usually isn't filed. Um, I, I will say on the substitute, I forgot to mention this, I did push back the ban by a year, so it would be May of 2027. The reason I did that is so that, um, we could, could kind of put the public on notice. If you, if you think you have a claim for this, you've got a year to file it. Um, and as long as it's filed before May of 2027, you can litigate it. Uh, but that we're putting a hard stop in as of May of 2027.

And I also, sorry, one more question. The judge, at the time of the divorce settlement or whatever, is he fully aware of the circumstances or would he no longer be aware that there was a circumstance where there was an affair, for example? Does that come out in the divorce proceedings?

Um, I will say that, um, you know, I think most of you know, I'm a divorce attorney. I've been doing divorces on and off for my, my, my whole practice. Um, I will say that in a divorce, uh, it usually, usually both, uh, parties are happy to share with their attorneys all of the complaints that they have with their spouse and all of the suspicions and allegations. Um, I've talked to many men and women who suspect that their, um, spouse may have been unfaithful, but they didn't have evidence of it. Some of 'em do have evidence of it. Some of 'em, um, have discussed it openly or admitted it. So every situation's a little bit different, But the judge is made aware. Uh, so in, in a typical, no, I'm sorry, I understand your question better now. In a typical divorce, um, in Utah, we're a no fault state. Um, which means you don't have to go and prove, you know, grounds for divorce. You can just say irreconcilable differences. And so usually today judges would only be made aware if there's an alimony request, and if the person requesting the alimony also had an affair that that contributed significantly to the divorce, then that would, that's the only circumstance where it would be an issue. So for instance, if a wife was asking for alimony from a husband in, in this hypothetical, and the husband had had an affair, it wouldn't necessarily be relevant. It might be mentioned just so they try to prejudice the judge against the husband, but it wouldn't be legally relevant. However, if the wife was asking for alimony and the wife had had an affair and that affair was a contributing, a significant contributing factor to the divorce, then it would be relevant. And then a judge could decide that the wife had forfeited her right to alimony or maybe full alimony because of her affair. So it's really only legally relevant if the person seeking alimony is also the one who had an affair.

Thank you. Marianne Christensen, executive director of Utah Legislative Watch. And my position, our position having to do with divorce cases, particularly where there are children involved, is that, um, that the courts have got to find fault. We don't say we're a no fault state, but when we get to the courts, the judges act like we're in no fault state. And that means that this lawsuit is the only way that a, that a party who's been faithful to their covenants and their promises can, can find some fault in the courts, can get fault assigned in the courts. And so I'm just having so much heartburn over getting rid of this law, that is our only way to have that imbalance of devotion to marriage covenants to have that addressed in the courts. So thank you very much and I hope you'll vote now.

Yeah, my name is Seth Stewart. I am from American Fork representing myself. Um, I will also be opposing this bill. Um, marriage is a contract formed between private parties. It is a traditional religious right, the notion that civil governments can create new civil, uh, statuses and regulate. Uh, the ordinance of marriage is a relatively recent and modern invention, and there's always a right of action to enforce the terms of a contract. SB 1 0 9 abolishes the civil cause of action for Alienation of Affections, which removes the, the last remaining recourse for enforcement of the terms of the marital contract. That's in direct violation to Article one Section 10 of the United States Constitution, which forbids any state from passing any law that impairs the obligation of contracts. This bill would impair the obligation of those contracts. Criminal liability for adultery was repealed through HB 40 in 2019, which means that there is, there is no longer any protection for the unit of marriage, including the husband and wife and, and their children. And it was raised that, uh, supposedly anciently women were regarded as, as chattel. But this, this, this law would actually treat both the man and the woman and their children as chattel that are supposed to be essentially shuffled around like, uh, tax, uh, tax properties to be regulated and assigned through alimony and child support obligations. And those are not contractual. I, I will highlight that point that if you wanted to have fairness in these kinds of proceedings and you wanted to provide real recourse, you would have them heard by a jury and have awards or penalties or enforcement or specific performance of the contract afforded in that way. Uh, the reassignment is, is essentially the government taking it upon itself to redefine marriage, uh, which is really not appropriate. So I would urge opposition to this bill. Uh, marriage is a private contract and deserves at least the same level of protection that we have for commercial contracts. Thank you.

Oh, sorry. Yeah, I, I would move that we move on to the next agenda item.

I'll briefly speak to it. I, um, you know, I think that there, you know, there's been good debate today, um, but my, my biggest concern is protecting the sanctity of marriage. Um, I do think that there is, uh, a place and a role, um, for, for, uh, for the courts here and to, um, um, I just, um, uh, don't feel good with, um, moving away from, um, from centuries of common law to, um, what I feel would, would weaken the institution of marriage. So, Thank you, Representative Thompson.

Yeah, two things. So, an alienation affection claim can be filed against any third party who someone believes interfered with their marriage. So that could include a therapist, it include, it could include your wife's best friend. It could include other family members like siblings who are saying you ought to dump that guy. It can also include clergy like bishops, if, if, if someone, if someone's wife was going to a bishop and a bishop, you know, somehow gave them the green light to get a divorce. So it's, it, it it's most typically, um, geared towards, um, sexual partners. Um, but it's not exclusively for that. In response to public comment, um, in 1987, Utah added irreconcilable differences, uh, to the reasons that a, a, a couple can list in their divorce filings. That's when we became a no-fault state. Uh, prior to that, you had to prove grounds for divorce. If you see movies from the forties and fifties, you'll see like a private investigator trying to get a picture of somebody's spouse in bed with the other person so they could go and show it to the judge, because absent abuse or, or an adultery, you couldn't get divorced. And so we absolutely are a no fault state. Uh, the, the term no fault does not appear in, um, in our statute, but I've been doing divorces since 1996, and every single one of them has pled irreconcilable differences, which is considered no fault. So that, that's my summary.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a substitute motion. Would you like to speak to that? Uh, yes. I'd like to make a motion that we favorably recommend, um, the Senate bill. What's the number?

Yeah. Um, I, I think it's just interesting, um, how this cause of action even came about. I mean, this goes back to, uh, common law where women were treated, treated as chattel and property of their husband. And so if you were trying to, uh, interfere and take away the husband's property, then that was also, there was monetary damages to the person. And we've moved a long way from that. And then more recently with the irreconcilable differences, um, a big reason for that change in 1987 was to take down the heat in these divorces. Instead of both parents going at, at each other and pointing fingers. It was to try to, uh, provide a situation in which the parties could split and try hopefully, to make it so that they could also raise their children together in as amicable a situation as possible. Um, and so it just seems counterintuitive to say that we're gonna do, provide this remedy of irreconcilable differences to try to, to, uh, shorten the proceedings, to protect the privacy of the parties so they're not airing their laundry out everywhere, and allow the individuals to escape the, the broken or maybe sometimes abusive relationships, um, without the financial and emotional burden of proving fault. And then on the other end, we're gonna say, but when that's done, or when we're going through this, this, we're also gonna allow this tort for litigation, um, based off of this, uh, this alienation of affection that seems to then reopen all those and undo everything that the whole purpose of the marriage being irreconcilable intended to do. So for that reason, I, I think this is a good policy change. I don't disagree that, uh, I know some of the arguments were made ba based on the legality. I think it's very clear there wasn't any question of whether or not it's legal. I think the, the difference is whether or not, uh, we want this type of policy, and I agree with the policy. So I support the, the Good sponsors bill.

Senator Weiler, I'll waive, also waive, I thought you were just saying.

Thank you. So I just wanted to, to, to weigh in on this so I get the hesitation to say maybe we need to preserve this because it preserves the sanctity of marriage. Um, but I think the reality of it is that this is such a difficult claim to make. And I think part of the reason for that is that, um, the courts have said, in order to win this claim, the person who's suing must prove that the efforts of the third party were the controlling force that caused the affair. So, in other words, um, the, the marriage was in a good place. The other, the spouse who ended up cheating was not predisposed to cheat and would not have cheated if not for the efforts of the third party. And the courts actually talk about, um, situations where there's a disparity of power, maybe a professor or a doctor, or somebody who influences somebody. And I think maybe that's what the courts were contemplating when this cause of act when they recognized this cause of action. But I think in practice, I've never heard of anybody prevailing on this. And in fact, when there are situations with a disparity of power, I've never heard of this cause of action even being raised. I think there are other causes of action that probably could be raised even if we abolish this cause of action, like, uh, intentional infliction of emotional distress or something along those lines. But, um, uh, or even, what is it? There's like criminal relations or something like that. Um, I think that was banned in the nineties. Yeah. But I think when they banned it, they only banned it because they said that's entirely subsumed within alienation of affection. So it'd be interesting to see if we abolish this, if that now comes back. I don't know. That would be a good question. Right? So I think this cause of action is so impractical because it's so in, it's so hard to prove. And then it's just so destructive to everybody involved that really it is nothing more than just a threat and a tool to get people to pay settlements. I I don't know of anybody ever winning this in court. And that may have happened, but I don't know. So I, I'm inclined to vote in favor of it, even though I do see some merit to it.

I you, Mr. Uh, vice chair. Um, I, I, in summary, I just wanted to mention, and I appreciate, uh, representative Nelson's, uh, comments about the, the cases that have been brought, how difficult it is. I mean, in looking through the type of cases that have been brought, these were all, uh, these type of cases are generally used to black BA mail or for leverage in type divorce type proceedings to try to help. It's also kind of interesting that in looking at the Supreme Court cases, the these type of cases are generally brought by the husband, uh, who is trying to go after, uh, the wife for leaving him. And so it's interesting how that dynamic is one that's normally played out in this type of situation. Um, I, my worry is that these type of things are generally used, uh, for vindictive litigation. They're, uh, claims filed for more revenge or settlement pressure than real compensation. So, uh, to remove this as being abused, I recommend we just, uh, uh, support this bill.

Thank you for my most, uh, interesting committee hearing of the session so far. So thank you for Okay. I'm gonna have to step away to present in the Senate committee.

Thank you, Mr. President. Um, Utah is one of only about six states in the country that still allows, um, you to sue someone, uh, if they've had an affair basically with your spouse. Um, I'm this, I'm not pro affairs, but, um, this is a archaic, uh, legal novel novelty that dates back to the medieval days when women were considered chattel or property of their husbands. And so if another man used that property, they owed compensation to the owner, the, the husband. Um, that's a patently offensive, uh, concept, and it has changed over the years, but that's, that's the derivative of where this came from. Uh, we, uh, mo and because of that, most states have abandoned it. Um, we never created this a cause of action by statute. It's, it's from the common law. But what this bill would propose to do is to say, we won't recognize these types of claims any longer. The reason I'm running the bill, Mr. President, is because I had an attorney at a a, a large well-respected law firm. It was a family law attorney that said, you know, these types of claims, they're, they're rarely filed. Most attorneys won't file them because it's kind of considered, um, well, it's kind of low on the totem pole. And, uh, a lot of judges, uh, will, uh, usually find a way to dismiss it. But what happens is most divorces will go to a mediation. And, um, a lot of people who are going to divorce through a divorce, uh, a lot of them have moved on and they're in other relationships. And I'm not, uh, uh, trying to make that say that that's a good thing or, or not. But what happens is when you try to settle the divorce, then sometimes the other party will say, well, I've got a claim. I'm gonna, I I may assert a claim against your girlfriend or your boyfriend, and so I want to settle that as well. And now you've got two cases to settle instead of one. So that's the impetus for banning this. Uh, now I did get a lot of feedback from the bar. Most people agree that, uh, most attorneys I've heard from agree that this should be banned, but they were concerned about the timing, uh, because we are kind of pulling the carpet out from under people. So I have pushed back in and committee, I amended the bill and pushed back the implementation date until May 5th, 2027, which would give everybody in the State of Utah a year plus notice that this is going to be going away. And with that, Mr. President, I'd be happy to yield any questions.

Uh, I would move that Senate Bill 1 0 9, be read for a third time.

Utah will join 44 other states that have legislatively banned this tort. That stems back to common law that I'll yield to Any questions? Senator, I don't seek questions. I may go to you for action. Thank you. I would move that Senate Bill 1 0 9, be read for a third time and pass.

Ah, thank you Mr. President. I appreciate the, the support we had to get this to the third reading calendar. This is a bill that, uh, places discretion where it ought to be with the school principal. And it allows school principals to make a decision based on who he or she thinks is the best candidate to fill a substitute teaching position. So, uh, what this does is it just removes an automatic,

Substitute Senate Bill 1 0 9 Alienation of Affection Amendments by Senator Weiler. This bill was heard in judiciary with the vote of 6 5 0. The House sponsor is Representative Loubet.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Uh, this bill is fairly short. It just says that eliminates the alienation of affection cause of action. Um, this is a, uh, carryover from the common law, meaning that it's not anywhere in our code. It's not statutory. This is something that is a court made law, um, that had came from the origins that women were property and chattel, uh, chattels another legal word for women or for property. Um, and that, uh, they would be, uh, if you were trying to, if they were having, uh, an affair or leaving you, that that would be considered like you're trying to steal your property. And so that's why there was a cause of action for this. But as over time, this is not often used 'cause we've kind of moved away from that mentality. Um, and so usually now this has been, uh, as a tool of a weapon by somebody who wants to sue. Either not, not just the person that their ex had an affair with, but potentially, um, people, coworkers, uh, people, friends may have encouraged to leave the, their spouse. Um, it could be therapists, doctors, all sorts of stuff. And so it has been used to abuse people in those situations. And so this bill is just to make it clear that this cause of action, um, is no longer, uh, gonna be available. And that way we were hopefully remove the abuse used by this.

I waive. Summation

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move that we remove second Senate, second substitute Senate bill one 10 from the Senate Third reading calendar, Representative Teuscher moves at second substitute Senate B Bill one 10 removed from the Senate third reading calendar and be returned to rules Be returned to rules for fiscal Impact. Would you like to speak to it?

February 26th, 2026. Mr. Speaker, the House Rules Committee recommends House Bill 3 44 be replaced with first substitute House Bill 3 44. Construction Consultant Amendments recommends HJR 12 be replaced with first substitute HJ R 12 Joint Resolution, encouraging strong family units. They also recommend the following bills and resolutions be assigned to standing committees to business, labor and Commerce. First substitute House Bill 3 44 second substitute Senate bill 1 75 to Economic Development and Workforce Services House Bill 5 84 and Senate Bill 2 0 4, Senate bill 2 77 to Education third substitute Senate bill one 19 Senate bill 1 67, second substitute Senate Bill 180 1 and Senate Bill 2 68 to Government operations third substitute Senate Bill 1 94 to Health and Human Services House Bill five 90. First substitute HJR 12 to Judiciary House Bill 5 93 to law enforcement and Criminal Justice House Bill 5 88. And for substitute Senate Bill 1 28 to Natural Resources, agriculture and Environment, HCR five to political subdivisions, house Bill 5 92 to public utilities and energy SCR one to Revenue and Taxation Senate Bill 60, Senate Bill 2 76 Respectfully, Jordan Toucher, committee chair

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem I move that the House Adopt the House Rules report.

The following bills will be signed to these committees to business, labor and Commerce. First substitute House Bill 3 44 second substitute Senate bill 1 75 to Economic Development and Workforce Services House Bill 5 84, Senate Bill 2 0 4, Senate bill 2 77 to Education third substitute SB one 19 SB 1 67, second substitute SB 180 1 SB 2 68 to government operations third substitute SB 1 94 to Health and Human Services Committee HB five 91st substitute HJR 12 two judiciary HB 5 93 to law enforcement and criminal justice HB 5 88. First substitute SB 1 28 to Natural Resources, agriculture and Environment. HCR five to Political Subdivisions Committee, HB 5 92 to public Utilities and energy scr one to Revenue and Taxation Committee SB 60 and SB 2 76.