Calif. Bill Amend Aims To Exclude Repossessors From Trespass Law

Assembly Bill 2120

Bill Summary:

AB 2120 states that the crime of vehicular trespass does not apply when a licensed repossession agency or its employee is on private property searching for collateral or repossessing collateral and, upon completing the search, leaves the property within one minute.

Fiscal Impact:

Potentially significant ongoing costs (Special Fund) to the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). DCA indicates that the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services within the department estimates increase annual cost ranging from $137,000 to $129,000 to enforce complaints and to hire an analyst to review and investigate new complaints related to this bill. The Office of Information Services within the department notes an estimated IT impact of $1,000 related to additional enforcement codes, which can be absorbed through existing maintenance resources.

Background:

Existing law requires property repossession agencies to be licensed by the DCA and defines repossession agency as any person who, for any consideration whatsoever, engages in business, or accepts employment to locate or recover collateral, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, including, but not limited to collateral registered under the Vehicle Code and subject to a security agreement. Repossessors are individuals or entities legally authorized to recover property (“collateral”) from someone who has not met their financial obligations, usually in the context of loans and credit. Although repossessors in California are generally authorized to recover collateral from public property and publicly accessible private property, they are prohibited from unlawfully entering any private building or secured area without consent of the owner, where private building is defined as “any dwelling, outbuilding, or other enclosed structure.”

Under existing law, it is a criminal offense to willfully commit a trespass by driving a vehicle onto another person’s property that is not open to the general public, without the person’s consent. This offense, misdemeanor vehicular trespassing, is punishable by up to six months in county jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. The law currently contains an exemption that allows a process server to enter private property to facilitate service without committing vehicular trespassing, as long as the process server leaves the property immediately after completing service. This bill adds a similar exemption for repossession agencies.

Proposed Law:

This bill provides that a repossession agency may enter private property to identify or retrieve property eligible for repossession without committing vehicular trespassing. This bill also specifies that it does not restrict the authority of the DCA to penalize conduct prohibited under specified provisions of the Business and Professions Code that prohibit repossessors from entering certain private property.

Related Legislation:

AB 515 (Chen), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, was substantially the same as this bill. AB 515 was vetoed. Governor Newsom’s veto message of AB 515 provides:

An earlier version of this bill included a cross-reference to repossessor licensing requirements that makes it clear that repossessors are not allowed to go into secured or locked areas. Unfortunately, that language was removed from the bill. I am concerned that allowing a repossessor virtually unfettered access to a person’s private property could result in confusion and possibly violent confrontations between property owners and repossessors. For these reasons, I am returning this bill without my signature.

This bill does contain the cross-reference identified in Governor Newsom’s veto message, which clarifies that DCA can penalize prohibited conduct.

Staff Comments:

DCA indicates that the Boards and Bureaus within the department derive their funding from fees charged to licensees. Generally speaking, licensee fees can only be adjusted by legislation. Increases in operating costs resulting from the implementation of new legislative mandates may place pressure on existing fee structures that, in totality, may necessitate legislation to raise licensee fees.

Follow This Bill or Read It’s Full Text Here