Real estate licensees; signing of pleadings, motions, and other papers. (SB302)
Introduced By
Sen. Ryan McDougle (R-Mechanicsville)
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
✓ |
Passed Committee |
✓ |
Passed House |
✓ |
Passed Senate |
✓ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
Signing of pleadings, motions, and other papers; real estate licensees. Proscribes an individual from alleging a real estate licensee has engaged in untrue, deceptive, or misleading advertising unless such licensee has been charged, indicted, or convicted regarding such conduct. Read the Bill »
Outcome
Bill Has Passed
History
Date | Action |
---|---|
01/06/2014 | Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/08/14 |
01/06/2014 | Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/08/14 14102151D |
01/06/2014 | Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice |
01/29/2014 | Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (11-Y 4-N) (see vote tally) |
01/29/2014 | Committee substitute printed 14104534D-S1 |
01/31/2014 | Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) |
02/03/2014 | Passed by for the day |
02/04/2014 | Read second time |
02/04/2014 | Amendments by Senator Stuart rejected |
02/04/2014 | Reading of substitute waived |
02/04/2014 | Committee substitute agreed to 14104534D-S1 |
02/04/2014 | Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute SB302S1 |
02/05/2014 | Read third time and passed Senate (38-Y 2-N) |
02/07/2014 | Placed on Calendar |
02/07/2014 | Read first time |
02/07/2014 | Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice |
02/17/2014 | Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (21-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/17/2014 | Committee substitute printed 14105066D-H1 |
02/19/2014 | Read second time |
02/20/2014 | Passed by for the day |
02/21/2014 | Read third time |
02/21/2014 | Committee substitute agreed to 14105066D-H1 |
02/21/2014 | Engrossed by House - committee substitute SB302H1 |
02/21/2014 | Passed House with substitute BLOCK VOTE (97-Y 0-N) |
02/21/2014 | VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (97-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/21/2014 | Reconsideration of House passage agreed to by House |
02/21/2014 | Passed House with substitute BLOCK VOTE (98-Y 0-N) |
02/21/2014 | VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE #2 (98-Y 0-N) (see vote tally) |
02/25/2014 | House substitute agreed to by Senate (38-Y 2-N) |
02/25/2014 | Title replaced 14105066D-H1 |
02/27/2014 | Enrolled |
02/27/2014 | Bill text as passed Senate and House (SB302ER) |
02/27/2014 | Signed by Speaker |
03/01/2014 | Signed by President |
04/06/2014 | G Approved by Governor-Chapter 696 (effective 7/1/14) |
04/06/2014 | G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0696) |
Comments
This is a bizarre proposal. Section 8.01-271.1 sets forth a good-faith pleading standard. If this bill were to pass, it would mean that if a plaintiff accused a real estate licensee of engaging in a deceptive advertising is, by definition, acting in bad faith (and thereby opening the plaintiff up to sanctions) just because the local Commonwealth's Attorney didn't prosecute the civil defendant. What if the CA decided that there just wasn't enough evidence to prove the licensee's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Under this proposal, a civil plaintiff, who has a lesser evidentiary burden, would be deprived of the right to even try to prove that the licensee engaged in misleading advertising. It's noteworthy that there is no other provision in the existing statute that automatically labels an allegation as one that is, under a particular set of circumstances, made in bad faith.