The “LS Snap” highlights and summarizes certain bills with a primary focus on matters impacting Courts, Court administration and the litigation process. You can then track them as they proceed during the Session using the free email alerts and bill tracking features provided by Texas Legislature Online. You must first register with Texas Legislature Online to receive this service.

1. The Committee substitute for HB 274 was considered Monday April 11, 2011 before the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee. The Litigation Section Council had been closely monitoring this bill. Many interested stakeholders had urged the Committee to consider revisions to HB 274 as originally filed by Rep. Brandon Creighton (R Conroe), and the substitute encompassed concepts as contained in  a revised offer of settlement procedure, based on HB 2661 by Rep. Tim Kleinschmidt (R-Lexington) and HB 2437 by Rep. Kenneth Sheets (R-Dallas) that eliminates the one-sided cost shifting contemplated by the original HB 2661.  

This substitute bill eliminates the “abusive civil ligitant” in favor of an offer of settlement rule. Under current Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ¡± 38.001, a person may recover attorney’s fees from an individual or corporation if the claim is for an oral or written contract. CSHB 274 modifies this provision by creating a new Section 38.0015 providing that the “prevailing party may recover reasonable attorney’s fees from an individual, corporation, or other legal entity if the claim is for breach of an oral or written contract.” 
 
The substitute HB 274 retains provisions for interlocutory appeals, expedited trial procedures for cases with amounts in controversy of more than $10,000 but less than $100,000, and a provision for early dismissal (akin to the 12 b(6) procedure in federal court), with a directive to the Supreme Court to adopt rules for the expedited trial procedure and procedure for early dismissal. Additionally, the substitute bill retains the explicit statutory cause of action provision, essentially providing that causes of action cannot be implied from a statute.

2. The House Insurance Committee heard HB 2010 by Rep. Smithee on Tuesday, April 12. This bill limits the use of broad-form indemnity agreements in construction contracts. Companion legislation, SB 361 by Senator Duncan, has already passed the Senate.

3. SB 1718 authored by Senator Duncan, on Court Reorganization, after public hearings on April 4, 2011 has now passed out of committee. As proposed, SB 1718 amends current law relating to filling vacancies in appellate judicial offices by appointment, partisan elections for all judicial offices, and nonpartisan elections for the retention or rejection for all judicial offices.

SB 1718 provides, that post partisan election, the judge of a district court or justice of court of appeals would face a nonpartisan retention election at the end of the term and at each succeeding election. The bill provides that all currently elected judges and justices would face a nonpartisan retention election at their regularly scheduled election. The bill also authorizes the senate to adopt a rule to address interim confirmations.

4. There a number of barratry bills pending is this session, one in particular with traction is SB 1716 filed by Senator Duncan. In its present version , C.S.S.B. 1716 adds a cause of action for a client who has been unlawfully solicited to void the contract and recover any actual damages and any fees and expenses paid. The bill allows a potential client to recover a civil penalty of $10,000 from any person who committed barratry but did not succeed in getting the potential client to sign a contract. Actual damages and attorney’s fees are also recoverable by a potential client. The bill was sent to the House on April 7, 2011.

5. SB 450 Duncan 3-21-11 left pending in committee, Relating to time for bringing action on a consumer debt. The statute of limitations on a cause of action relating to a debt is four years. However, there has been a split in the courts on determining when the limitations period begins to accrue.

SB 450 clarifies that the statute of limitations begins to run 60 days after either the last payment on the account or the last charge on the account, whichever is later. Additionally, this bill expressly states that a payment made in violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not serve to toll the limitations period. It is getting late in session, if stays in committee, it will of course languish.

The LS Snap does not provide detailed bill analysis, or serve as a bill tracking service - nor will it attempt to cover the thousands of bills that are routinely filled during a session.