A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | April 20, 2015 | Committee Room | House Judiciary I

Full MP3 Audio File

I'll be calling the Judiciary I Committee to order. Our Sergeant-at-Arms as we need more and more everyday in this committee is Barry Moore, B. H. Powell and David Linthicum, and I'm going to start real quick with Dean Arp, he says his bill won't take but two minutes. You have the floor, this is House Bill 643. [xx] proposed committee substitute. Representative McNeill makes a motion to hear the proposed committee substitute. Thank you Mr. Chairman. What this bill is attempting to do is to fix a problem that we are all know about and I don't know, it just seems like we have some predatory roofing contractors that out there and the majority of these roofing contractors are really, really good and but everybody has heard of someone or know someone who have been faking, but someone who's given money and the work has never been done, or there's been a problem. In this particular case what this bill is doing is that in the aftermath of storms we have some roofing contractors that come up and people sign a contract, and they signed it under the basis that the contractors promised them a free roof, and then when the insurance company gets involved, the proceeds are not there, the insurance company is not covering the replacement of the whole roof, and so what you see is that the person is then and left holding them back. Very simply what this bill does is provide that all roof and repair contracts are written, and that they have certain enumerated items that have to be in terms with the written contract. It provides the notice of cancellation three days if the insurance company does not cover the entire bill, the cost or any portion of it and with that I'll take any questions. Any questions? Representative Montreal. Yes Representative [xx] in average you're going to like it but I've got one question this is no in any way going to affect the person that wants to repair their own roof, does it? No because what this is when under the definition of Roof Repairs and Contracts if they go out that they will have to have a written contract but the notice for cancellation doesn't occur if the insurance proceeds are not involved. In other words the only the theme is, that the notes of cancellation and the rights to cancel occurs three days after the owner has received information from the insurance company that they're not going to cover the roof to the degree that was anticipated when they signed the contract. If there's no insurance company involved we still are required to have a written notice that  roofing contractors still requires to hold those in place but this is mainly dealing when the issues with which they signed the contract changes and his third party insurance company says, no we're not Representative [xx], if my roof is damaged by a storm, I can get the next one and fix my roof, is that right? And not call anybody.  Yes that was my question thank you Mr. Chair. He can fix my roofs Mr. Chair Any further questions? Representative [xx] you have a mention for a favor report Yes I would move for a favorable report to House Bill 653 to proposed committee substitute and I don't see a referral on it, so. There is no referral, all in favor of the motion let it be known by saying Aye. Aye. Opposed, No and Ayes have it. I was playing golf with this man over the weekend, and he said that he was playing golf with his son-in-law, and his son-in-law watched him hit a really kind of a, not a bad shot, but sort of just an ordinary shot and then he hit another one like that and his son-in-law said, What's wrong? And he said, Well these are called son-in-law shots. He said, son-in-law shots? What is a son-in-law shot? He said, Well, it's a shot where you had hoped for a better, but you're OK with what you got, but you'd already hoped for better. Next bill we have is Representative Ryan and Representative Steven.

House Bill 222 Retention Elections/Appellate Division. the PCS Representative Paul makes a motion, we have the PCS before us. All in favor late enormous say I I thank you Mr. Chair there was one confusion about this so let me clear that as the first thing this does not change the number of justice to come to the supreme court or the number of the justice on the court of the appeal, secondly it what is does it says that there will be elected just the quiet they are now but after the first election it will go on the ballot as retention, we retain them or we don't, and that how it is if there is a non-retention then there will be a new election just as the original election   Where exactly, Any one in the audience want to speaking for against all of you Mr. [xx] Collins[sp?] what through the, yes. Thank you too, [xx]   No, I'm actually Philip Isley, not Gene Boyce.   Actually it's for Mr. Isley [xx]   But thank you for the very nice compliment of referring to me as my father-in-law. I'm Philip Isley, it really is actually that one is. I represent the North Carolina Advocates for Justice, we have reviewed the bill and we are fine with the bill. Thank you. I'll make one further comment, the Bar Association did just informed me they are in favor of this bill. And I will say Mr. Chair with your permission, this was a subject we talked about extensively in the Courts Commission and everyone there seemed to be in favor of it. We need to get to some method beyond statewide elections for those very important positions. [xx] for this particular bill. The bill allows for an original election in the [xx] correct, correct. Anytime, the first time you are on the court, you have to be original election. Even if you wind up getting a point and it's to replacement, the next time you have to run in an open fee. The first time you are elected you must be elected. Representative Mark. Thank you Mr. Chair. First question is you heard the son in law joke from Mr. Boyd. The second question is how will the transition from our current system to this system meaning with the incumbent judges when will they be locked into [xx] for attention election? What if they effected the old bill is. Their next election project. So just to be clear, if they were already been elected by a regular sort of open fete election and they would be up for retention and so any judge now though that was appointed and hasn't yet stood for contestant election, how would we treat their transition? They would have to be, they would have to run for election. Got it. I won't let you, I understand is, wait I think I do, but I just want to make sure before I load on it. So, after their first election when their term is done we have in five years, is that right? Yes. They wouldn't be following me if they were like they do now. Worse they could file and somebody could file against them. They would be actually filing on July the first, I don't see [xx] file anymore. They would state their intention that they wanted to be retained, nobody could file against them but, and during the elections if they're not to retain them, then somebody would be appointed? Yeah we have a judiciary election. What election? That we opened it up and there is an election and they also pay a polling fee, 1% of their salary. I think let me clarify that a little bit, I think they would actually the governor would appoint, so they did not retained. The governor would go ahead initially fill the seat and the next election of the members of General Assembly there would be an open seat at that point so it probably be two years. OK that was my question, if they were appointed, would they serve for eight years, but you're saying they would start for two years and then they had to stand for elections. OK. I understand thank you.

Representative [xx] I think has an amendment to send forward Thank you Mr. Chairman. If you look on page three I believe line 15 where we're discussing the numbers on court of appeal I think this is the perfected amendment to make sure we have the correct numbers of judges any question regarding the amendment? yes sir. As I stand at a 15 now and this says 12 but below it, it says it has three, so is that 15 or do we need to change the one to 15 The amendment changes the number 12 to 15. Just to make sure we're not getting rid of three judges. How does that affect line 20 now?   Erica would you answer that please? Do what I can do [xx] Okay thank you Any further question regarding the amendment? If not all those in favor of the amendment that been almost say I, oppose no and the I's have it And the bill is before you. [xx] favorable [xx] Enrolled into a committee substitute. You've heard the motion, all in favor let it be known by saying I. All opposed no, and the I's have it. The next bill we're going to hear is Drivers License Designation Representative Graham, are you here? Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee. This is a very simple request, and this comes from the meeting I had back in January with the tribes of North Carolina and it also has been vetted through the North Carolina Commission of Indian Affairs that when [xx] to an American Indian it be designated as AI as opposed the eye, is really simple, and I understand that is not a requirement but it's up to the person who is getting this license to put that designation to be AI. Representative McNeill Appropriate time I move a favorable report to House Bill 523. Have you called any questions or any statements? If not all in favor of giving the house bill a favor report referral defined, transportation [xx] Ans serially referred. Those in favor say I, opposed no, thank you.