It turns out that Gov. Pritzker vetoed the bill discussed in this post on March 25 -- the same day that the legislature passed a different prejudgment interest bill. For more about the bill that actually became law, see this post.
--------------------------------------------------------There's an old saying that goes something like this: "Laws are like sausages. It's best not to see either being made." This quotation is usually attributed to Otto Von Bismarck; he probably never said it. Whoever came up with it, the quote refers to the often unsavory and frequently disturbing process by which legislative proposals find their way into law.
In the case of HB3360, Bismarck's sausages seem a less appropriate analogy than Dr. Who's Weeping Angels.
Follow along with me -- and don't blink!
On February 15, 2019, very early in the life cycle of the 101st General Assembly now concluded, Rep. Arthur Turner introduced a bill to amend two sections of the Mortgage Foreclosure Article of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely, §§15-1504.1 and 15-1507.1, extending or, as necessary, reenacting, until 2023, certain special, temporary fees to be added to the filing fees for initiating mortgage foreclosure actions. The bill was designated HB3360
HB3360 was referred to the Rules Committee on February 15, 2019. It was assigned to the Judiciary - Civil Committee on March 5, 2019. On March 6, 2019 HB3360 was further referred to the Commercial Law Subcommittee.
Rep. Turner introduced a couple of amendments on successive days, March 19 and 20, 2019. Meanwhile, the original bill was passed out of committee, without the amendments, on March 27 and March 28, 2019. The amendments were tabled on March 28 and HB3360 received its Second Reading in the House on April 2, 2019. Then, on April 4, 2019, HB3360 received its Third Reading. The bill was passed by the House and sent to the Illinois Senate that same day.
In the Senate, still on the same day, April 4, 2019, HB3360 received its First Reading, and was referred to the Assisgnments Committee.
On April 24, 2019, HB3360 was referred to the Financial Institutions Committee.
Action in the Financial Institutions Committee was postponed on May 1 and May 8, 2019. Committee scheduling deadlines were set for May 17, May 24, and May 31, the final day of the 2019 session. Until May 31, 2019, HB3360 sat in the Senate Financial Institutions Committee. On that date it was sent back to Assignments.
Meanwhile, in Article 50 (Adminstrative Provisions) of the FY2020 Budget Implementation Act, P.A. 101-10, in §50-25 to be precise, amendments were made to §§15-1504.1 and 15-1507.1 of the Mortgage Foreclosure Article consistent with those sought by HB3360.
HB3360, it would seem, had achieved its purpose without ever leaving a Senate committee. Section 50-25 of P.A. 101-10 became effective on June 5, 2019.
Then someone must have blinked.
And, in that blink of an eye, on January 10, 2021, the dessicated corpse of HB3360 was suddenly reanimated and placed on the Senate Calendar for an immediate Second Reading. It was set for a Third Reading on January 11.
On January 11, Senate President Don Harmon introduced a floor "amendment" to HB3360. The "amendment" deleted all the no-longer-necessary stuff about §§15-1504.1 and 15-1507.1 of the Mortgage Foreclosure Article of the Code of Civil Procedure and substituted in its stead an amendment to §2-1303 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the section pertaining to interest on judgments, adding new subsections (c) through (f) thereto. These provisions, which will be discussed substantively in Part 2 of this article, provide for prejudgment interest in Illinois tort cases.
The General Assembly website is very detailed, and very helpful, but I can not be sure I understand this January 11, 2021 entry: "Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Be Approved for Consideration Assignments." I don't know for certain whether this means the "amendment" went to committee and immediately returned, duly approved. But the next entry, also on January 11, the bill was "Recalled to Second Reading." The next entry on the timeline, also January 11 was "Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Adopted; Harmon." Then -- still on January 11 -- the bill was placed on calendar order for Third Reading. HB3360, now as "amended," passed 38-17 (with two not voting) following the Third Reading.
Someone blinked again and HB3360 "returned" to the House. Here's the rest of the Actions recorded on the ILGA website:
Because an entirely different version of HB3360 had already passed the House, way back in April 2019, this wholly different statute with the same name could bypass all the scrutiny new legislation would ordinarily receive. Fast as any Weeping Angel, HB3360 moved from committee oblivion to the Governor's desk, through the House -- which, during these two days was grappling with, and presumably at least somewhat distracted by, the selection of a new Speaker.
I realize a significant number of FWIW readers will be thrilled by this new law -- and again, we'll talk about the substance of the legislation in Part 2 -- but, even if you have lobbied for the adoption of pretrial interest for many years, is this any way to run a legislative process?
---------------------------------------------For Part 2 of this article, click here.
Never in a million years would I have guessed that Jack likes Doctor Who. So who is Jack’s favorite Doctor? Come on Jack, we want to know. I am guessing Tom Baker.
ReplyDeleteThis bill will effectively exterminate insurance in Illinois and drive us bankrupt. Might as well live on Skaro.
ReplyDeleteYou could watch Dr. Who . . . or you could just run.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know, Matt Smith was a good one. But I liked John Hurt too.
ReplyDeleteI am guessing Jack doesn’t really watch Doctor Who or is trying to avoid a heated comments war about which Doctor is best.
ReplyDeleteActually, Anon 1/19 @8:23 a.m., I'd relish a heated comments war about which Doctor Who was the best -- what a refreshing change of pace that would be. But I'm afraid I'll disappoint you with my answers: I started watching Dr. Who on Sunday nights on Channel 11 and Tom Baker defined the role for me. I enjoyed the Jon Pertwee and Peter Davison incarnations, too, the former more than the latter. Of the modern Doctors, I'd have to say that Mr. Davison's son-in-law, David Tennant, is my favorite, but I liked a lot of the Matt Smith episodes, too.
ReplyDeleteJack Leyhane stayed up on Sunday nights way past 11:00 watching Doctor Who on WTTW too. Ah, the days of misspent youth. I knew you would be a Tom Baker guy. So when are you going to post the semi-annual "WHO sits where." Pun intended.
ReplyDeleteJanuary 20th is Tom Baker's birthday. He is 87 years of age. Somebody give the man a jelly baby.
ReplyDeleteWait a minute, Jack! No love for Peter Capaldi?
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I am a Patrick Troughton person.
ReplyDeleteColin Baker anyone? Anyone?
ReplyDeleteCome on, folks. You can't use your real names (or at least nom de blogs) for lighthearted comments about Dr. Who? No one will hold that against you when you run for judge. By the way, Tom Baker is The Dr. Who.
ReplyDeleteDelete. Delete. Delete.
ReplyDeleteCan we quantum-lock the state legislature?
ReplyDeleteAlbert,
ReplyDeleteNo. The phrase is "a fixed point in time." But if you want to go old school, you could always "reverse the polarity of the neutron flow." Jon Pertwee was the man.
Watch the episode that Jack is referring to and the reference will make sense.
ReplyDelete