SB1348 amends the Counties Code to revise the fee schedule for sheriffs in third-class counties, with a focus on process service and related enforcement activities. The bill raises several existing fees, including increasing the charge for serving or attempting to serve summonses and other process filed in person from $35 to $60, while establishing a separate $35 fee for summonses and other process filed electronically. It also updates fees for returning process, serving eviction-related possession orders when filed electronically, and certain other sheriff services such as subpoenas, warrants, garnishees, juror summonses, replevin, attachments, and prisoner transport.
The bill also creates or revises flat fees and mileage rules for service and transport, including a $10 flat mileage fee for service or attempted service of process and updated per-mile compensation for transporting persons to correctional or treatment facilities. In addition, it sets a new fee structure for sales of real and personal property under court judgment, including a $900 fee for the sale of real estate and tiered fees for personal estate sales based on judgment amount. The measure preserves existing provisions allowing actual costs to be taxed in certain circumstances and continues to exempt police departments, other law enforcement agencies, units of local government, and school districts from the section’s fee requirements.
The bill’s practical impact is to increase and modernize sheriff compensation in third-class counties, especially by distinguishing between paper and electronic filings and by adjusting fees tied to court process, evictions, executions, and prisoner transport. It affects litigants, judgment creditors, landlords and tenants in eviction matters, and county sheriffs’ offices, while leaving the broader structure of sheriff fee authority in place. Because these fees are taxed as costs in many cases, the bill may increase litigation and enforcement costs for parties using sheriff services.
Overall sentiment appears generally supportive, as reflected by the bill’s passage in both chambers with clear majorities: 41-12 in the Senate and 71-37 in the House. The vote margins suggest bipartisan acceptance of the need to update sheriff fees, but not unanimous agreement. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into floor debate, but the recorded votes indicate that the bill was favored by most members while still drawing meaningful opposition.
The main point of contention is likely the cost increase to service and enforcement fees, particularly the jump from $35 to $60 for in-person service and the new or higher charges for related sheriff actions. Opponents may view the bill as increasing burdens on litigants, landlords, creditors, and others who rely on sheriff process service, while supporters likely see it as aligning fees with current costs and distinguishing electronic from in-person filings. The bill also appears to raise questions about how much of the added cost will ultimately be passed on to parties in civil and eviction proceedings.
SB1348 amends Section 4-12001 of the Counties Code, changing the fee schedule for sheriffs in third-class counties. It updates statutory fees for serving process, returning process, prisoner transport, property sales, and related enforcement tasks, and it adds separate treatment for electronically filed process. The bill affects county sheriffs, litigants, judgment creditors, landlords, tenants, and other parties who pay sheriff fees as costs in civil and enforcement proceedings.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable treatment, passing the Senate 41-12 and the House 71-37. Those margins suggest broad support for updating sheriff fees, though the votes were not unanimous and indicate some concern about the size and effect of the increases. No committee transcripts were provided, so the available record shows support in the final votes but limited detail on debate.
The primary contention is likely the increase in fees charged for sheriff services, especially the higher rate for in-person service and the new fee structure for electronic filings. Critics would likely focus on the added financial burden on parties who must use sheriff service, including civil litigants, landlords in eviction cases, and judgment creditors. Supporters would likely argue the changes reflect modern filing practices and better compensate sheriffs for service costs. The bill’s exemptions for law enforcement agencies, local governments, and school districts reduce its reach, but the fee increases still directly affect private parties using sheriff services.