Report from the Criminal Records Accuracy Drafting Committee

The Criminal Records Accuracy Drafting Committee concluded its final in-person meeting in preparation for the act’s second reading at the ULC annual meeting in San Diego. The act requires criminal justice agencies to use biometric information to accurately identify individuals, maintain accurate records, report dispositions of arrests and charges, and provides remedies by which an individual can seek correction of their criminal history record. By complying with the requirement that they report the disposition of arrests and dispositions of cases, criminal justice agencies will greatly reduce, if not eliminate, a major cause of inaccurate criminal records. It also provides an important measure to guard against mistaken arrests by creating a mistaken identity registry.  Persons whose name or identifying characteristics are similar to that of a person who has a criminal history record may apply to have their names included in the mistaken identity registry and receive a document which they can use to demonstrate that they are not the person with a criminal history record.

Robert J. Tennessen, Chair
Drafting Committee on Criminal Records Accuracy

Advertisements
Report from the Criminal Records Accuracy Drafting Committee

Update from the Drafting Committee on an Electronic Registry for Residential Mortgage Notes

The Drafting Committee on an Electronic Registry for Residential Mortgage Notes met March 17 and 18, 2017, in Bethesda, Maryland.  The primary issue for the Drafting Committee was whether to move forward with drafting a state electronic mortgage note registry at this time or to continue for now to monitor and provide comment on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York proposal for a federal electronic registry for residential mortgage notes.

The Committee was assisted in its deliberations by four very informative presentations. Mr. Bill Beckmann, CEO of MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., gave a presentation regarding MERSCORP’s electronic registries, MERS System and MERS eRegistry.  Corinne Milliken, Esq., an attorney with the New York Federal Reserve, presented an overview of the latest draft of the New York Federal Reserve’s proposed National Mortgage Note Repository Act of 2017.  Mr. Tod McDonald, Co-Founder, COO, and Head of Partnership for R3, LLC,  and Isabelle Corbett, Esq., Senior Counsel and Director of Regulatory Affairs for R3,  gave a presentation on distributive ledger technology and its possible use with regard to an electronic registry.  Eric Fish, Esq., Senior Vice President for Legal Services, Federation of State Medical Boards, gave a presentation on development of an interstate compact among the states.  The Committee is very grateful to all of the presenters for taking the time to share their knowledge with the Committee.

The Committee also received input from stakeholders, including representatives of the FHFA, Fannie Mae and consumer interests, and from its ABA Advisors, Prof. James Durham and Barry Nekritz, Esquire.  After a thorough discussion, the Committee had a good idea of what might be the likely structure and contours of a state electronic mortgage note registry.  The consensus of the Committee, however, based on the input it received, was that it was not inclined to begin drafting of a state electronic mortgage note registry at this time.  Instead, the Committee agreed that for now it will continue to monitor and comment upon the New York Federal Reserve’s proposed National Mortgage Note Repository Act as that draft act moves forward through the Federal Reserve’s vetting process and is presented for consideration by Congress.

The Committee also provided Ms. Milliken with its comments on the latest draft of the proposed National Mortgage Note Repository Act.

H. Kathleen Patchel and Carlyle C. Ring, Co-Chairs
Drafting Committee on Electronic Registry for Residential Mortgage Notes

Update from the Drafting Committee on an Electronic Registry for Residential Mortgage Notes

Update from the Drafting Committee on Non-Parental Child Custody and Visitation Act

The Non-Parental Child Custody and Visitation Act drafting committee met for a fifth time on March 24-25, 2017, in Washington, DC.  This was our second drafting meeting since the first reading last summer at the ULC Annual Meeting in Stowe, Vermont.  The committee continues to focus on concerns raised on the floor, and has decided to:  1) delete the concept of de facto parenting, and 2) limit the act to suits filed by non-parents who have either acted as “consistent caretakers” or have had “substantial contact with the child and denial of contact would present a detriment” to the child.  One of the committee’s primary challenges has been to provide a structure that would allow non-parents who have not had actual care, custody and control of a child to seek court-ordered access without violating Troxel.  We continue to make progress on these issues, and look forward to further comment from the floor this summer in San Diego.

Debra Lehrmann, Chair
Drafting Committee on Non-Parental Child Custody and Visitation Act

Update from the Drafting Committee on Non-Parental Child Custody and Visitation Act

Update from the Drafting Committee to Amend UCC Articles 1, 3, and 9 in connection with a registry for electronic mortgage notes

The Committee met for a second time on March 24 and 25, 2017, in Washington, DC.  The Committee had before it a draft of federal National Mortgage Note Registry Act which would establish an electronic registry for notes secured by residential real property and a draft of proposed amendments to Articles 1,3 and 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code to modify the rules for negotiable instruments and secured transactions to accommodate electronic mortgage notes filed in the registry.

The current draft of the amendments provides for a number of changes to the Official Text of the Uniform Commercial Code:

Article 1

  • The term “holder” is to include a person who has submitted a negotiable or transferable record to the repository system that converts to an electronic mortgage note (EMN).

Article 3

  • The term “negotiable instrument” includes an EMN.
  • A transfer of an EMN in the records of the repository system is a “negotiation” and “indorsement”.  An indorsement other than a general one needs to be evidenced by the records of the repository operator.
  • The registrant in the repository system is the person entitled to enforce the instrument.
  • A record of discharge in the repository system is a notice is discharge for holder in due course status.
  • If the legacy submission to the repository system was not a negotiable instrument or transferrable record, there can be no holder in due course of the EMN.
  • A record of an EMN certified by the repository system showing the plaintiff as the registrant evidences the plaintiff’s right to enforce the EMN.
  • An instrument converted to an EMN and later destroyed under the system rules is not a lost or destroyed note for purposes of 3-309 and does not discharge the obligor.
  • No presentment or notice of dishonor is required for the EMN.

Article 8

  • An EMN is not a security but may be a financial asset if held in a securities account.

Article 9

  • An EMN is located in DC for purposes of the Article 9 choice-of-law rules.
  • New 9-313A gives a secured party who is a “registrant” or an “authorized  transferor” of an EMN (with the registrant waiving the right to transfer the EMN)  “possession” of the EMN  for purposes of Article 9 with the same priority as possession of a paper negotiable instrument.

The meeting was attended by a number of observers including representatives from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York who are drafting the federal statute.  We had a good discussion on a number of issues and expect to have revised drafts of the federal statute and the amendments available for an initial reading of the amendments at the Annual Meeting this summer in San Diego, California.

Edwin E. Smith
Chair, Committee to Amend Uniform Commercial Code Articles 1, 3 and 9

 

Update from the Drafting Committee to Amend UCC Articles 1, 3, and 9 in connection with a registry for electronic mortgage notes

Update from the Drafting Committee to Revise the Uniform Parentage Act

The Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) Drafting Committee has been hard at work since the last annual meeting on revising the UPA to integrate same-sex couples into the act; to update the act’s surrogacy provisions; and to provide children of assisted reproduction with a right to information about their genetic heritage.  Since the annual meeting, the ULC Executive Committee has expanded our committee’s scope to revise the act (rather than merely amending it) and to include the concept of “de facto” parentage in the act.

Our committee was structured to include current or former legislators from Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Minnesota, and Colorado and significant political diversity.  We have also benefited from a large and engaged group of observers.  We agreed early on that our objective should be to create an act that can be widely adopted.  We held in-person meetings in Minneapolis on October 28-29, 2016, and in Seattle on March 10-11, 2017, to read and review proposed changes to the entire act.  In addition, we held six telephone meetings focused on several thorny issues in the act as follows:

  • September 14: in light of concerns at the annual meeting about including “de facto” parents in the Non-Parental Child Custody and Visitation Act, we discussed taking the approach of many states to treat people who meet listed criteria to be established as full legal parents.
  • November 16: we discussed the appropriate distinctions between gestational and genetic surrogacy.
  • December 20: after consultation with federal child support enforcement authorities, we broadened the current acknowledgement of paternity process to provide a streamlined means for some same-sex couples to establish parentage through an acknowledgement.
  • January 23: we worked on specific language for “de facto” parentage concept and agreed that the act should provide alternatives for states either to limit the maximum number of legal parents to two or to establish more than two parents in extraordinary circumstances.
  • February 7: we discussed the effect of noncompliant surrogacy agreements and whether gestational and genetic surrogacy agreements should be treated differently.
  • March 29: we re-read language regarding genetic testing, the adjudication process, and assisted reproduction that had been the subject of substantial revisions at our in-person meeting earlier in the month.

We are hopeful that the act will be ready for its final reading this summer in San Diego and look forward to your comments and questions!

Jamie Pedersen
Chair, Drafting Committee to Revise the Uniform Parentage Act

Update from the Drafting Committee to Revise the Uniform Parentage Act

Update from the Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act Drafting Committee

The Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act drafting committee met for its final drafting committee meeting in Chicago on March 3 and 4, 2017. The focus was on deciding a number of open issues and polishing the act for its final reading before the Conference this summer in San Diego. One major change occurred when the drafting committee, in order to clarify the application of commercial law rules, particularly those of UCC Article 9, to virtual currency transactions, voted to mandate the application of UCC Article 8 treating virtual currency as a financial asset. The act will be worked on by the Style Committee at its May meeting, and simultaneously will be distributed to the committee roster for comments, before preparing the draft that will be submitted to the annual meeting in San Diego.

Fred Miller, Chair
Drafting Committee on Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act

Update from the Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act Drafting Committee

Update from the Model Veterans Court Act

The Model Veterans Court Act Drafting Committee held its fourth and final meeting in Chicago on March 3-4, 2017. The agenda was to review in detail the policy decisions made in earlier meetings and to refine the draft for the final reading at the Annual Meeting in San Diego, CA in July, 2017. Several stylistic and re-ordering changes of the act were made, but no substantive changes were made. We had several observers from groups that work to train individuals or work to promote veterans courts in our country. Near the end of the meeting, all observers indicated full support for our act.  One change made at our last meeting was to have the act presented in a form for both enactment by legislation or by court rule.

This has been a remarkable drafting committee and has been unanimous in its support for veterans courts and the effort to draft the very best act possible. Our observers were of immense help in having the draft reflect the best thinking and practices of these courts. We await the Executive Committee’s decision to rename the act as the Model Veterans Treatment Court Act.

Harry L Tindall, Chair, Model Veterans Court Act Drafting Committee

Update from the Model Veterans Court Act