S.B. 143 Utah Exemptions Act Amendments: transcript

So I have an exemptions act. I don't know, is this Homestead exemption or This is car value exemption. CarVal. Okay. We have different exemptions then. Okay. Well, I was gonna say maybe we could have collaborated. Maybe we still can. Yeah, maybe. Okay.

Well thank you Mr. Chair. And, uh, members of the committee Is this room's always a little intimidating with the size of it, but, uh, it's got a good vibe today, so I'm feeling good about it. Um, I bring this bill before you today after, um, uh, being contacted by a constituent. And then when I started talking with more folks about it, more people kind of chimed in about it. And it pertains to the amount of, uh, one's car, personal car value that they can exempt in a bankruptcy proceeding or when someone's trying to collect a debt. And it turns out that, as you can see in this bill, that Utah allows for, uh, a motor vehicle value up to $3,000. That's almost impossible to find these days. I, I think maybe there's a few out there. But one of the things that I think we hope for when someone finds themselves in a, a fiscal or financial struggle and, and has to look at bankruptcy, is that we want them to be able to stay employed and to keep moving forward and, and bring in an income and get back on their feet, get their kids to school, get the, those sort of things happening. So I had the LRGC draft up and look at some other states around us and see what it looked like for them. Idaho allows up to $10,000. Wyoming allows up to $5,000. Colorado allows up to $15,000, uh, $25,000 if the individual is elderly or disabled. New Mexico's 10,000, Arizona is 15,000, 25,000 if disabled and Nevada is 15,000 with a full exemption if the vehicle is modified for a person with a disability. So we kind of thought about the different potential numbers and ultimately actually did a little digging around on KSL and some of the where or used cars available and felt like $15,000 was, uh, a reasonable value to, um, assume someone could keep a reliable mode of transportation. So that's the first thing the bill does, uh, is increase that value to $15,000. But then it also, um, allows for one motor vehicle if of any value if that vehicle has been modified to serve the purposes of a, a disability, uh, either in the person themselves or in one of their dependents. If you've uh, ever talked to anyone about the cost of modifying cars for that, it's, it's, uh, sometimes even a hundred thousand dollars to get them modified. And so, I I just thought of the travesty. It would possibly be that someone would lose a vehicle that serves such a point, uh, purpose and would be so expensive to repair or sorry to replace. So that is the gist of this very simple bill comparatively to the ones I've just learned from before. Me and I with Adam, open to any questions.

Alright. Well, we could have collaborated, but, um, so, um, my, so my, um, I've, I, I'm an attorney as you know, I've done a little bit of debt collection work, especially when I was right outta law school. But most creditors, um, um, understand that if they take the vehicle away from someone that owes the money, that they can't work, they can't get to work and make money. And so it does make sense. Uh, do you know how long it's been at $3,000 for a vehicle?

Oh goodness. I do remember when we initially started looking at it. Uh, LRGC had told me the time. It's, it's been years and years and years. Okay.

Do you know if vehicles have gone up in value since that time? Based

On my own individual experience, yes. I would say yes they have.

Okay. You don't have an expert to, to quantify that. No, I'm just kidding. You Know, the interesting thing is I could actually get a phone a friend, but I think, yeah, I think most of us in the room could probably relate to the fact it's gone up as well. Yes,

Yeah, I'm looking at line 50, um, and it's subsection B uh, to several subsections, but it, it, in subsection A, you have a limiting factor on a person with disabilities if the dis which limits or impairs the ability to walk as that term is defined in the code of federal regulation. But then in B it just has a really broad without any limiting language. And I'm wondering if there is any limit and, and who determines disability under subsection B? So, for example, if, if I make the car let, let's say that I have a car that I have an autistic child, but I decide that they need to have a really good audio visual system in the back, and it's gonna be a really awesome audio visual system because my autistic child really needs a super good audio visual system, a stereo and things like that. Um, like is there a limiting factor there? And that's something we kind of tried to get at by having the two pieces and the, and with it.

Okay. So the first was that their, uh, the individual or the individual's dependent meets the definition, uh, such as which limits the impaired or impairs the ability to walk.

Yeah. So you're tying the two together and 'cause you would need it for the ability to actually get somewhere. Yeah. And I really like that side of it. 'cause I, I have had, you know, friends and, and other people that it takes a lot to modify a vehicle for someone with, you know, with some mobility disabilities and, and that kinda thing. So I, I really like that and that I like that makes sense with the and mm-hmm. On it. And tying those two together, I kind of just wanted to make sure that was out there.

Yeah. And that was part of the intent as well. And,

But I am a little bit hesitant on the 15,000 as far as that's a, that's, you know, a five x jump. And so I, you know, I'm a little, little concerned on that amount. So Yeah.

And we did kind of have that too, right? Like looking at the other numbers around us and, and looking at what was out there. I I, I think it's a reasonable number looking at the other states, but I also understand if people would be more comfortable with a little bit of a haircut there. Um, and I'm open to, you know, suggestions or thoughts, um, from the community. Maybe like a, a staging of it goes up to this and then in five years it'll go to another, you know, with, with inflation. And we did that for small claims court, we kind of took a staged approach to when the small claims limit went up. But we talked about that too, like with could we link it to inflation or cost of living increase or something there, and then started to get sticky.

But I, I've been thinking exactly like you Have been. Yeah. Or even something like 10,000 and in 2035 it automatically adjusts to 15,000, something like that.

So it's just gonna happen statutorily.

But I still have some concerns on the 15th that, that's my only other concern on it. Thanks.

Let's continue that dialogue because I'm completely open to that concept. And I, it's interesting because when you're, when you're working with drafters on bills, you don't wanna immediately go to the ways that you assume people can beat a law, but you have to, right? Like you have to think about the ways, well, where would be the, where would be the, I I try to assume good intent as much as I can, but I also know that there's not always that, so we do have to consider it. So yeah. Have to be a little devious in your thinking.

Senator Escamilla. Um, thank you Mr. Chair. Make a motion that we favorably recommend S I'm sorry, I'm trying to find, oh, Senator, oh yeah. SB 1 43 New Exemption Act amendments to the floor.

I, I deprived you of your I was just gonna say, if, if we are fortunate enough to move this forward, I'm, we'll work with the other committee members and, and members of the body to get to a number that's acceptable.

Hope I have the darn bug in my ear. You know, when you're trying to be vote in one committee and present. Yes. This morning is a full on Monday. If you're a little distracted, we'll understand. Oh, Thank you. Thank you. Maybe I will keep it in just in case

It's a reminder. I'm capable. Thank you. Committee, and, um, welcome to Monday. Uh, this bill I would like to present to you, uh, Senate Bill 1 43 came out of a call from a constituent who was going through some financial hardships and it looked like was probably, uh, working towards, uh, a bankruptcy and was trying to figure out what pieces of their life they were going to have to be parting with. And one of the things that they were most concerned about was their car. And if you don't have a car, if you don't have the ability to drive to work, get your kids to school or daycare or whatever else, your ability to earn is probably gonna be pretty limited. And he had found that it was a $3,000 exemption for the value of a car, which in Utah had not been adjusted for years and years and years. So, uh, I got on ksl.com, I know some people in the car world and tried to see what you could get for $3,000. And boy, it's pretty limited. So our analysts and LRGC folks helped me look at other states around us, and we found that Idaho was $10,000, Colorado, $15,000, New Mexico, $10,000 Arizona, uh, 15 to 25 if it's a disabled vehicle. And Nevada was $15,000. So we thought, okay, hang on one second. Okay. Nope, it doesn't say you have to vote. That was Senator Vickers. Sorry. Um, and so we thought, well, let's, let's see if we can get Utah's up to what we think is reasonable for people given the current market and given our surrounding states. We started out with $15,000 and after some conversations in the Senate and with some of the folks who work in the debt space, decided 10,000 was what felt better, kind of as a compromise. We also added the pieces about if you have a mobility limitation and you have a vehicle that's been adapted for you, um, that you would be able to keep that, um, vehicle. So it's a really, a pretty simple bill, but I think it has the potential to help folks get back on their feet after being in a rough spot. And that's it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we pass out SB 1 43 Utah Exemptions Act amendments with a favorable recommendation.

I'll waive. Okay. The motion's waived.

Yeah. So the amendment goes to the amount of exemption that this bill will allow for the value of a motor vehicle exemption. After presenting this bill and committee, we had presented a proposed amount of $15,000 for an individual's vehicle after consulting with some of my colleagues here and outside of here, it seemed that $10,000 was a better number. We'll, Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. President. This bill came to me after some, a constituent had reached out, um, in a bit of a, a financial situation where they were going to be going through bankruptcy and going through all of the processes associated with that. And they, um, had informed me that the amount of a car that was allowed to be kept was $3,000. This has not been updated for years, um, in our Utah code. And they were asking if I thought it would be reasonable to try to increase that amount. I I think we all know that you need transportation to be able to get to a job, to be able to keep an income, get your kids to school, daycare, all that sort of a thing. So then I started probing into even ksl.com and different places to where I could see what you could get a used car for. And a $3,000 car is, uh, uh, pretty much a non-existent thing these days. So looked at other states. Um, Idaho has a $10,000 Wyoming 5,000, Colorado, 15,000, Arizona, 15,000, Nevada 15,000. So this bill essentially allows, um, or addresses the value of that vehicle in the exemptions process up to $10,000. And it also does allow, I think, with a pretty good spec specificity that if an individual who has a mobility limitation has a vehicle that has been fitted to them, so say they're unable to walk or walk with difficulty and their car has been fitted for them, uh, that they would be able to keep that as well as part of the process.

It's been over, I believe, a decade since this has been increased and we work with folks that work in the space as well. I, I think it's a, a good way to keep people employed and taking care of things while they're getting back on their feet. With that, I'm open to any questions,

Senator Vickers Baldy Bwin Brammer Bus Comore Escamilla Fillmore Grover Harper Hankins Ipson Johnson k Kwan McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Lum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vickers Weiler Wilson Winterton,