Transcript Highlights:

• It is funded entirely by a licensed or fee set by the Florida courts Supreme Court and by non revenues
• A formal complaint may be filed in which case the Supreme Court of Florida points referee.
• are filed directly with the Supreme Court of Florida.
• So we file a formal complaint with the court. The lawyer is required to answer.
• Referee files that report with the Supreme Court.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The issues are divided based on the tiers of court as well as the entities in the court system.
• And by way of a brief background, in the trial courts in Florida, in an age where pleadings are filed
• In the trial courts in Florida, in an age where pleadings are filed electronically and other documents
• are filed electronically, and increasingly justice partners, including the courts, are using electronic
• Next I'll move to the appellate courts. We have six district courts of appeal in Florida.

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Criminal and Civil Justice

Summary: The committee met to hear fiscal year 2026-2027 legislative budget requests from several justice-related agencies. The Florida Commission on Offender Review requested funding for investigator and revocation staff salary increases to address turnover, plus nonrecurring funds for Wi-Fi, seven vehicles, technology support, and commissioner salary adjustments. The State Courts Administrator presented a broad judicial branch request focused on trial court case-management technology, additional case managers, trust fund authority for child support hearing officers, courthouse furnishings, district court flexibility in staffing, a future courthouse for the Sixth District Court of Appeal, Supreme Court elevator replacement, POM accounting implementation support, judicial security liaison positions tied to the Florida Fusion Center, expanded senior management service authority, and judicial salary adjustments. The Office of the Attorney General outlined pay and operating requests for consumer protection, citizen services, ethics, crime compensation, victim services, vehicle replacement, IT and cybersecurity, lease and operating costs, and PALM-related expenses, while several senators questioned the office about outside counsel contracts, contingency-fee arrangements, transparency, and the use of private law firms. The Department of Corrections made the largest presentation, describing severe staffing shortages, high turnover, rising inmate populations, increased assaults, and heavy overtime use. Secretary Ricky Dixon said the agency’s request was driven by constitutional and public safety needs and included funding for operations, security equipment, inflationary costs, vehicle replacement, offender information system modernization, technology restoration, inmate health services, drug and food cost increases, staffing pilots, maintenance, security infrastructure, Florida PALM, recruitment and retention, and $56 million for new correctional housing units. Members asked about inmate labor, prison safety, overtime, vehicle breakdowns, and whether more National Guard support was needed; Dixon said the agency needed more staffing and pay competitiveness rather than a long-term military presence. A correctional officers’ union representative also urged support for pay raises, citing low pay and staffing concerns. No votes were taken on the budget requests. The chair allowed extended questioning, especially for the Department of Corrections, but noted time constraints and asked agencies to return in a later committee meeting, including FDLE, which was deferred because of a House site visit.

Transcript Highlights:

• The filing fee for an eviction in city court is around $254.
• It was mentioned that, yes, filing fees would be affected in the Baton Rouge City Court, but there has
• may be talking 15 filing fees, or we might be talking 1,500 filing fees a year.
• may be talking 15 filing fees or we might be talking 1,500 filing fees a year.
• The filing fees in Baton Rouge City Court were more expensive than the Justice of the Peace.

Committee: Senate Judiciary A

Keywords: 974, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I able to meet on these Senate files.
• Senate file 99. No, wrong one. Senate Senate file 99. No, wrong one.
• </c><01:14:15.360><c> Uh</c> semantics of a fee or a tax. Uh semantics of a fee or a tax.
• Cheyenne is reducing its fee and fee.
• </c> a normal fee? a normal fee? &gt;&gt; Mr.<01:27:37.600><c> Mayor,</c> &gt;&gt; Mr.

Bills: SF0099 , SF0116 , SJ0006

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Keywords: easement, electricity delivery, public utility, prescriptive easement, landowner rights, surface water, drainage utilities, municipality, elections, environmental management, shared parenting, family law, joint custody, child well-being, parental rights, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Our filing fees could never be self-funded.
• The filing fees were based on how many owners. Then it went to a $40 fee in 1992.
• </c><04:24:33.319><c> are</c> The fee is $250—the filing fee is $250.
• fees for filing a case my in-person uh fees for filing a case my fees<05:24:55.558><c> are</c><05:24
• Okay, how about number of 91-A cases filed in court?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first reviewed House Bill 1, focusing on the legislative branch budget, especially the Senate and House lines. Members discussed that the Senate’s fiscal year 2025 adjusted authorized amount was higher than 2024 actual spending, largely due to personnel, benefits, and travel, and one member proposed a $500,000 annual cut. Staff explained that any reduction would need to be allocated across specific line items such as personnel, benefits, and travel, and noted that the Senate budget is entirely General Funds. After discussion of how the adjusted authorized figures were calculated and why the branch no longer staffs some joint committees as it once did, the committee moved on without taking a vote on that section. The committee then heard a detailed presentation from the New Hampshire Retirement System. NHRS officials described their statutory administrative budget, which is funded through the retirement trust rather than the General Fund, and said the FY 2026-2027 increase is driven by IT modernization, cybersecurity, a new strategic plan, and additional staff positions. They also reviewed the system’s funding progress, clean audit opinions, investment performance, and changes to asset allocation, while noting that several recent pension-related laws required major database changes. Members questioned the large increase in salaries and benefits, the need for new employees versus contractors, the purpose of training costs, and the source of the Group Two benefit funding. NHRS said the governor’s budget includes General Funds for Group Two benefit changes, with $5 million in FY 2026 and $27.9 million in FY 2027, and that the figures reflect the governor’s recommendation and related HB 2 provisions. Committee members also asked about employer and employee contribution rates for Group Two police and fire members, which NHRS said were not included in the budget document but were about 31.2% for police and 30.35% for fire, with employee shares around 11.55% and 11.8%. The committee did not make a decision on the NHRS budget during this exchange and indicated it would review the details further before returning to it later. The committee then heard from the Community Development Finance Authority on the State Treasury Department budget line for the required state match to administer the federal Community Development Block Grant program. CDFA explained that its $280,000 annual request for FY 2026 and FY 2027, totaling $560,000, supports administration, technical assistance, contracting, and monitoring of roughly $19 million in annual federal CDBG funds. Members asked about the leverage of the state match, oversight of projects, staffing, and grant prioritization. CDFA said it has 18 employees, uses public hearings and a scoring system to prioritize awards, and conducts both desk and on-site monitoring, with annual audits to ensure compliance. No vote was taken on the CDFA item in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• are other fees that go directly to the courts or to general funds that don't have anything to do with
• are other fees that go directly to the courts or to general funds that don't have anything to do with
• are other fees that go directly to the courts or to general funds that don't have anything to do with
• are other fees that go directly to the courts or to general funds that don't have anything to do with
• </c><00:09:56.360><c> impacted</c> how court fines and fees have impacted how court fines and fees have

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Public Safety

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill also prohibits any fees for the preparation or filing of initial claims, allows reasonable
• Now, we do not, we do not represent them at the US Court of US Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims.
• , the Court of Appeals.
• the veteran a fee.
• If you don't get a favorable win at the court, you don't get your hourly fee.

Committee: House S/C on Defense & Veterans' Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• There are a number of costs a court may impose against a defendant, such as the criminal filing fee,
• It also eliminates or repeals numerous provisions that allow a court to impose costs or fees.
• Those are all listed in the bill analysis, but as examples include the criminal filing fee, jury fee,
• This is also important to note: fees are imposed unevenly across the courts.
• These fees are also imposed differently in different courts.

Summary: On January 20, 2026, the committee held public hearings on House Bill 2102, House Bill 2161, and House Bill 2332. HB 2102 would sharply limit legal financial obligations by prohibiting courts from imposing costs unless specifically authorized by statute, repealing many fees and interest on restitution, and making eliminated debts unenforceable and satisfied. The sponsor and supporters argued that LFOs are harmful, inconsistently applied, and create uncollectable debt that burdens indigent defendants and hinders reentry. Opponents, including local government and collections representatives, warned the bill would shift costs to cities and counties, reduce accountability tools, and could cost local jurisdictions millions. No vote was taken. HB 2161 would expand the Attorney General’s authority to issue civil investigative demands for possible violations involving civil rights, labor standards, jail standards, immigration-related restrictions, and police use-of-force laws. Supporters from the Attorney General’s office, labor groups, and civil rights advocates said the bill would make investigations faster and more effective, especially in wage theft and discrimination cases, while not changing substantive enforcement authority. Opponents from law enforcement, cities, and business groups argued the bill was overbroad, lacked sufficient standards, and could create due process, confidentiality, and separation-of-powers concerns. Members asked about safeguards, and staff and the AGO described court challenge procedures and internal review standards. No action was taken. HB 2332 would regulate automated license plate readers used by state and local agencies, generally limiting use to specified law enforcement, parking, toll, and transportation purposes, restricting sharing and retention, and prohibiting uses tied to immigration enforcement or protected health care. The sponsor and privacy, immigrant-rights, and reproductive-rights advocates said the bill was needed to prevent misuse of sensitive location data and to close loopholes that could allow out-of-state or federal access. Law enforcement, cities, vendors, and some business and campus representatives supported privacy guardrails but said the 72-hour retention limit, warrant requirements, and other restrictions were too strict and could hinder investigations, victim recovery, and parking enforcement. The hearing ended with testimony still underway and no vote or final action reported.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a civil court filing fee 310.
• Uh, section 18 on line on page five is the increase in court filing fees.
• </c><00:27:20.159><c> Uh</c> is the increase in court filing fees.
• Uh is the increase in court filing fees.
• filing fee goes up from 285 civil court filing fee goes up from 285 to<00:27:23.279><c> 310</c><00:27

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Public Safety

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• For the $125, the lower assessed-value properties would be equivalent to the court filing fee, and then
• /c><00:17:18.720><c> established</c> filing fees when they were established filing fees when they were
• </c><00:18:28.559><c> for</c><00:18:28.720><c> higher</c> the court filing fee and then for higher the
• court filing fee and then for higher assessed<00:18:29.679><c> properties</c><00:18:30.480><c> would
• /c><00:25:30.799><c> have</c> look at the filing fee you have to have look at the filing fee you have

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The law says they do not have to pay any court costs to file. They get a form.
• And he takes an appeal to a higher court, or he takes to file another motion with the trial court.
• He wouldn't have to pay the victim's attorney fees and court costs.
• I think it doesn't. the victim's attorney fees and court calls. I think it depends.
• court ruling, and he still have to pay your attorney's fees, even if he's successful?

Committee: House Civil Law and Procedure

Summary: The committee first took up HB 51 by Rep. Villio, a constitutional amendment to prohibit post-conviction bail for people convicted of aggravated offenses against minors. Members adopted a technical amendment to simplify the ballot language, heard a 6.8A report explaining the committee’s authority over constitutional amendments, and then adopted the report and passed HB 51 with amendments. Support was noted from law enforcement and district attorney groups. The main item was HB 526 by Rep. Dickerson, which would cap general damages in civil cases at $500,000 in most cases and $1 million for severe permanent injury, while leaving economic damages uncapped. The bill drew extensive testimony from trucking, logging, business, and insurance-reform advocates who argued that unpredictable verdicts and “nuclear verdicts” drive up commercial insurance costs and push businesses out of Louisiana. Opponents, including attorneys and victims’ advocates, argued the bill would unfairly limit recovery for seriously injured people and could harm sexual assault survivors and families in wrongful death cases. After debate, the committee adopted an amendment clarifying the cap applies per individual plaintiff rather than to the action as a whole, but then rejected a motion to report the bill; the roll call was 4 yeas and 5 nays, so HB 526 remained in committee. The committee then heard HB 173 by Rep. Bamberg, which would bar recovery for bodily injury or property damage by a driver who had failed to maintain required auto insurance for at least 30 days before the crash. Supporters said uninsured motorists contribute to higher premiums and should not recover large awards, while opponents warned the bill would punish innocent spouses, children, and other people who may be unaware coverage lapsed. An amendment was adopted to add the 30-day uninsured requirement, and the bill moved to opposition testimony, but the transcript cuts off before any final vote on HB 173.

Transcript Highlights:

• So she has co-filed it with me this session.
• The same year that I began my professional career as an official court reporter for the trial court.
• That's district court, Boston Municipal Court, housing court, juvenile court, land court, probate and
• family court, and superior court.
• We sent the documents to the court.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee held its inaugural hearing of the session, led by Chair Michael Day and co-chair Senator Lydia Edwards, and reviewed a large slate of bills and constitutional amendments. The chair laid out hearing procedures, including three-minute testimony limits, priority for in-person witnesses, and deadlines for reporting constitutional amendments and House bills. The committee heard testimony on 29 proposals, with many witnesses and advocates speaking in support of measures they said would clarify the law, improve access to justice, or address public safety and fairness concerns. Several bills drew extensive testimony. Supporters of H.1686/S.1254 urged creation of a commission to study intentional misrepresentation of service animals, citing disruptive and dangerous encounters with fake service dogs and the need to protect legitimate service-dog teams. H.1649/S.1168 on court transcriber fees received strong support from transcribers and CPCS, who said rates have been frozen at $3 per page since 1988 and should be raised to $4.50, with an automatic CPI adjustment; they also described the work as time-consuming and essential to the justice system. H.1768/S.1037 on indigency was backed by CPCS, which said the bill would update eligibility rules, reduce unnecessary six-month reassessments, and eliminate the $150 counsel fee for indigent adults. H.1723/S.1193 to remove the charitable immunity cap was supported by legislators and attorneys who argued the current $20,000/$100,000 caps leave seriously injured people undercompensated and make Massachusetts an outlier. The committee also heard testimony on S.1046 regarding adoptions, with multiple adoptive parents, attorneys, and agency representatives describing recent probate court interpretations that have disrupted out-of-state surrender and finalization practices. Witnesses said the bill would restore predictability and allow birth parents outside Massachusetts to use either their home-state law or Massachusetts law, while preserving ICPC safeguards. Senator Feingold testified on H.1748/S.1109, “Conrad’s Law,” to criminalize coercing someone into suicide, arguing Massachusetts should join most other states in creating a specific offense rather than relying on involuntary manslaughter charges. Representative Donahue supported H.66 to remove “so help me God” from the constitutional oath of office. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee simply heard testimony and thanked witnesses, with chairs indicating they would continue reviewing the bills and written submissions.

Transcript Highlights:

• It requires the heir finder agreement to be in writing, signed, filed with the court within 30 days after
• Number one, instead of having the agreement filed with the court within 30 days, this striker has it
• So the exemption is separate from the filing fees, and so your amendment would strike the filing fee
• Your amendment would strike the filing fee schedule in its entirety, whereas Senator Dingra's amendment
• would just exempt specific parties from having to pay that filing fee.

Committee: Senate Law & Justice

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we filed the motion to provide an amicus brief to the court to explain the issue and walk through
• It's just one fee. So the daily fee we would like to move from $7 to $10.
• And these fees are resident fees, so if you're a non-resident, those fees can be at least doubled.
• or the vessel fee.
• . ...before attempting to increase any fee or fees for Idaho residents.

Summary: The committee first approved minutes from February 9 and February 11, 2026. It then heard Senate Bill 1328 from Senator Harris, a cleanup bill related to the Department of Lands’ authority to use its own general counsel under the 2024 changes in Senate Bill 1292. Harris said the bill aligns statutes with current practice by replacing references to the Attorney General in multiple land-management and enforcement provisions, while preserving some AG involvement. The Attorney General’s office, through Phil Skinner, opposed the bill as unconstitutional, arguing it strips core duties from a constitutional officer and transfers sovereign litigation authority to agency attorneys. Department of Lands Director Dustin Miller and General Counsel John Richards testified in support, describing confusion and overlap in recent cases. After debate, a substitute motion to hold the bill in committee failed 2-7, and the original motion to send the bill to the floor with a do-pass recommendation passed 7-2. The committee then considered three Idaho Department of Fish and Game rule dockets. Docket 13-0103-2501, covering public use of Fish and Game lands, added definitions and restrictions related to camping, leashes, exploding targets, and air guns; it was approved unanimously. Docket 13-116-2401, on trapping and fur-bearing animals, clarified bait definitions, adjusted reporting and reimbursement provisions, and added allowances or restrictions tied to snow-covered routes, bridges, wildlife crossings, and wolf trapping; it was also approved unanimously. Docket 13-119-2501, governing licensed vendors, revised selection and termination criteria, lowered the active vendor ceiling, barred new out-of-state vendor applications, and allowed vendors to pass through credit card processing fees; it was approved unanimously. Finally, the committee heard Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation Director Susan Buxton on docket 2601-2501. She proposed fee increases for motor vehicle entry, commercial vehicle entry, boat launching, moorage, and reservation-related charges, while asking the committee to reject two sections: one adding employee enforcement language and one increasing campsite fees, which she said should be revisited later to better protect affordability for Idaho residents. The committee agreed to reject those two sections and approved the remainder of the docket, with members noting the changes were intended to focus fee increases more on non-residents and align with prior legislative intent.

Transcript Highlights:

• our court.
• a party filing their petition.
• late fees, renewal fees, to pay online when there is no other option.
• We also support the real estate transfer fee. We strongly support that fee.
• I used to file it. I still file another one.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Housing

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing held its second introductory hearing to frame the session’s housing agenda. Chairs Cyr and Haggerty described the hearing as a chance to hear a wide range of perspectives on Massachusetts’ housing crisis, including underbuilding, zoning and permitting barriers, rising costs, and the need for both state and local action. The committee heard from court, municipal, advocacy, and regional housing leaders, with recurring themes of increasing supply, preserving existing housing, preventing displacement, and expanding resources for renters and homeowners. Chief Justice Diana Horan of the Housing Court said the court is handling more than 40,000 new filings annually with only 15 judges, and estimated the court would need about 21 judges to meet demand. She described complications from RAFT-related stays, mental health and guardianship issues, aging housing stock, and the new eviction sealing law, which she said was being implemented smoothly but may require additional resources if filings continue to rise. The Massachusetts Municipal Association and MAPC emphasized that municipalities need flexibility, funding, and better tools such as MassWorks, Housing Works, H-DIP, 40R reforms, inclusionary zoning changes, and a local option transfer fee; they also said local control concerns and long permitting timelines remain major barriers. MAPC and others stressed that supply growth alone will not solve the crisis and urged continued support for subsidized housing, access to counsel, and modular/off-site construction. Advocates and housing providers focused on displacement, preservation, and tenant protections. Homes for All Massachusetts and Mass Law Reform Institute called for rent stabilization, stronger tenant protections, foreclosure prevention, elimination of junk fees, continued funding for RAFT and HomeBASE, and expanded access to counsel. Mass Union of Public Housing Tenants said the state needs far more extremely low-income housing, more operating subsidy, and major investment to repair public housing, while also supporting tenant technical assistance during redevelopment. Franklin County’s housing authority warned that rural communities are being left out of many state programs and asked for a rural LIHTC set-aside, a permanent rural credit boost, and a review of housing choice programs. A Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation researcher presented findings that communities that add housing generally see stronger municipal finances, and that housing growth can improve property tax and state aid outcomes. Seasonal community representatives from Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket described extreme affordability pressures and the need for tailored tools. Nantucket’s housing trust chair said the island has made progress through local funding, inclusionary zoning, and deed-restricted units, but still needs a real estate transfer fee and faster ways to preserve year-round housing. Across the hearing, members and witnesses repeatedly returned to the need for a mix of production, preservation, tenant protections, and local flexibility, rather than relying on any single policy solution.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:37:41.599><c> resolved</c> are filed at our court are resolved are filed at our court are resolved
• So those items that are filed by the petitioning party in our court have general fund funding.
• So those items that are filed by the petitioning party in our court have general fund funding.
• So, if you're filing a business corporation, you pay a one-time fee of $135.
• So, if you're filing a business corporation, you pay a one-time fee of $135.

Bills: HF1151 , HF1239 , HF1240 , HF2020 , HF2514 , HF2515 , HF2451

Committee: House State Government Finance and Policy

Keywords: Compensation Council, salaries, state officials, judicial compensation, legislative process, public funds, misuse, law enforcement, accountability, state government, legislative auditor, compliance, transparency, retirement benefits, health insurance, dependents, state employees, Medicare, legislative studies, government oversight

Transcript Highlights:

• And the court, um, will move to—excuse me, the defendant then has the burden, so the person who filed
• Under the UPPA, the attorney's fees, costs, and expenses related to filing the anti-SLAPP motion must
• , costs, and expenses related to fees, costs, and expenses related to filing<00:15:39.160><c> the</c>
• And so the courts are attorney fees.
• a meritless lawsuit and if you file a meritless motion, either way, fees will be awarded.

Committee: Joint Judiciary

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Severini: Those have a strict 180 days from the time it's filed in our court.
• Of course, we're filing fees are paid, you know, if someone's indigent, of course there wouldn't be a
• , and it's up to the judge and the court to act on those filings.
• Speaker: Sure, the Fair Defense Fund is primarily funded through court fees and is intended to support
• The Fair Defense Fund is funded from a variety of revenue sources, including court fees.

Bills: SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The court relied on, the court held that in saying, referencing the Florida, because what, what, what
• Small claims where the recovery of attorney's fees is the sole objective of the filing, and it's been
• So some courts are, Shall because shall is permissible, so some courts are having that, interpreting
• If they don't, the court or what health insurance will pay, if they don't, then the courts are saying
• I am reading a court order wherein the court is trying to figure out what the legislative intent was

Summary: The subcommittee considered a long agenda of civil justice and claims measures. HB 1173, relating to the Florida Trust Code, was presented as a clarification of standing in trust litigation after recent case law; after questions about who may sue, an amendment was adopted clarifying that an expressly named charity retains standing, and the bill passed 14-2. HB 1437, on attorney’s fees in motor vehicle PIP disputes, drew testimony from insurers and reform groups opposing a return to fee-driven litigation and from medical groups supporting fee recovery for prevailing parties; it passed 17-0. CS/HB 147, addressing prohibited debt-collection communications during nighttime and early morning hours, was described as a clarification of an outdated statute in light of modern communications, with support from business groups and no opposition in the vote; it passed 18-0. The committee then heard several claims bills against the Department of Children and Families. HB 6511, for relief of L.P., described severe injuries to a child after DCF allegedly failed to act on warning signs; a technical amendment was adopted and the bill passed 18-0. HB 6515, for relief of Michael Barnett, involved DCF’s alleged failure to investigate domestic violence that preceded the killing of three children and injury of a fourth; members asked about the settlement amount and the case’s circumstances, and the bill also passed 18-0. HB 1517, expanding wrongful death law to allow parents of an unborn child to recover for the child’s death, generated the most extensive debate. The sponsor said it aligns civil law with existing criminal definitions and excludes claims against mothers and providers of lawful medical care, including IVF; opponents warned it could be used to target reproductive care, support networks, and domestic violence survivors, while supporters framed it as a justice measure for families. An amendment clarifying damages rules for minors and unborn children was adopted, and the bill passed 13-4. Finally, HB 947, on evidence of medical damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases, sought to allow broader evidence at trial and to change “shall” to “may”; supporters said it would improve fairness and transparency, while opponents argued it would weaken post-2023 tort reforms and reintroduce inflated medical damages. The amendment was adopted and the bill was then taken up with additional opposition testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we filed the motion to provide an amicus brief to the court to explain the issue and walk through
• We filed the motion to provide an amicus brief to the court to explain the issue and walk through it.
• These fees are resident fees, so if you're a non-resident, those fees can be at least doubled, and we're
• entry fee.
• or the vessel fee.

Committee: Senate Resources and Environment

Keywords: 989, all