SB 317 amends Kentucky Revised Statutes 454.185, which governs the qualifications of sureties on bonds required by statutes derived from the former Civil Code and by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The bill keeps the existing requirements that a surety be a Kentucky resident, be worth double the amount secured beyond the surety’s debts, and have property in Kentucky subject to execution equal to the amount secured. It also preserves the rule that when there are two or more sureties on the same bond, their qualifications may be considered in the aggregate.
The main effect of the bill is to update the statutory language by replacing older mandatory phrasing with more modern wording while leaving the substantive surety requirements unchanged. It applies to civil litigation bonds and other court-related bonds that rely on this statute, affecting litigants, sureties, attorneys, and courts that must verify bond sufficiency under Kentucky procedure.
Impact
SB 317 makes a narrow, technical amendment to KRS 454.185 governing surety qualifications for statutory and civil-procedure bonds. The bill does not appear to change the underlying legal standards for who may serve as a surety or the financial/property requirements they must meet; instead, it modernizes wording and clarifies the statute’s operative language. Its practical impact is on civil actions and bond administration in Kentucky courts, where parties must continue to ensure sureties meet residency, solvency, and in-state property requirements.
Sentiment
Based on the available record, the bill appears to be noncontroversial and procedural in nature. There are no committee transcripts, recorded votes, or other indications of opposition or debate in the provided materials. The absence of recorded contention suggests the measure was treated as a technical cleanup bill rather than a substantive policy change.
Contention
No specific points of contention are shown in the available materials. Because the bill preserves existing surety qualifications and only revises statutory wording, any concern would likely be limited to whether the language change could affect interpretation or enforcement, but no such objections are documented here. The lack of committee discussion and voting history indicates no identified opposition from legislators, courts, or affected civil-practice stakeholders in the provided record.