New laws for 2007 in California

December 21, 2006 | News | 30 comments

New California Laws:

1. Minimum Wage will be $7.50 for 2007 and $8.00 for 2008.

2. Assembly Bill 1169 ? This law reestablishes the sixty (60) day notice which is required by landlords to give to residential tenants on periodic leases (e.g., month-to-month lease) when the tenants have been living in the property for at least one year. This law maintains the exception of a thirty (30) day notice for certain qualifying properties for sale.

3. Assembly Bill 2429 ? No more conditional Real Estate Licenses after 10/1/07.

4. Senate Bill 1609 ? This law provides protection to consumers who obtain reverse mortgages.

5. Assembly Bill 2618 ? This new law essentially is clean-up legislation which increases the jurisdictional limit in small claims court to $7,500 on certain issues which were left unchanged when general limits increased from $5,000 to $7,500 last year.

Popularity: -8% [?]

Subscribe to the RSS feed

Get E-mail Updates

Tom Voli

Search

Reader Comments

Leslie Woolford on January 2, 2007 at 12:46 pm

I was trying to find new laws the were inacted on the first of the year, and found your website. I read the ones you posted, but wasn’t there one about using your cell phone while driving? I want more…call me unaware. I missed the local news :l

Mari Hopper on January 2, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Where do I find out information regarding the new pet tethering law? Something about it being illegal to chain a dog more than 3 hours at a time.

tom.voli on January 2, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Cell phone law takes effect January 1 2008.

For more info on the pet tethering law check out:

http://www.network.bestfriends.org/animallawcoalition/news/6622.html

Albanidia on January 27, 2007 at 7:24 pm

yeah this is cool.

but what about abortion?

Dawn on January 29, 2007 at 7:55 pm

Hello,

I just need some help. I heard it was a new law that all full time employess get 9 sick paid days off as of JANUARY 2007 besides in San Franscico? Do you know were I can find this?

tom.voli on January 29, 2007 at 9:58 pm

I have not heard nor found anything state wide indicating that employers are required to provide 9 sick days per year. As far as I can see, it is San Francisco only.

tom.voli on January 29, 2007 at 9:59 pm

I am not aware of any changes to abortion laws in California.

California traffic fines increase in 2007 on January 31, 2007 at 8:21 am

[...] As a follow up to a post earlier this month titled “New Laws for 2007 in California“, I have located the change in traffic fines as of 1/1/2007. If you are an aggressive driver and disregard the rules you will be paying more this year. Hang on to your wallets and check these out. [...]

tom.voli on February 1, 2007 at 8:32 am

Thank you.

I haven’t changed the template yet but I am in the process of doing so and adding additional user features such as refinance calculators etc.

Patti on March 20, 2007 at 10:09 am

I have a question no one seems to be able to answer. If a judgment in California is renewed after the initial 10 years, according to law, how long in total can the judgment show up on your credit report? Is it automatically another 10 years?

Tom Voli on March 20, 2007 at 10:23 am

Yes. If the judgment is renewed a new date will appear on the credit report and will restart the time clock. You could always try and dispute that but the bureaus will not remove it. The renewal is treated as a new judgment. The best thing to do with these is negotiate them at 50% of their total. Judgments are as damaging as tax liens in California.

Patti on March 20, 2007 at 11:30 am

thank you for your fast followup. I thought the new provisions that the FCRA came up with in 1997 clarified this, that a debt cannot be renewed? that the time limit begins with the commencement of the “initial” debt and 180 days thereafter?

Tom Voli on March 20, 2007 at 12:43 pm

This is something that may be able to be removed from the report with an attorney’s help but the fact is that it is a debt that is due and removing it from the report does not settle the judgment. The debtor still can attach to any assets he can find. I have definitely seen judgments renewed after 1997.

Jamie on March 24, 2007 at 8:14 pm

My Daugher has a Judgement for a Credit Card Bill
about 8 years old Discovery Card

The Law firm and Collection agency that has the Debt
Refuses to talk to her about the Bill
When we contact them all they want is information to see if she has any assets, Job ect

Is her only Option bankruptsy ?? She has no assets and own;s nothing

Tom Voli on March 25, 2007 at 6:12 am

This should be answered by an attorney. I shy away from giving legal advice as I am not qualified in that arena. I can tell you that if they are pursuing the judgement as they seem to be it can be a problem for her at any time that she does have assets. They will search county records to see if she owns a home, and if they find her job they can attach a garnishment to her.

I suggest finding an attorney that has experience in credit issues before trying a BK. They may have better results with negotiating the bill down.

Karen on March 28, 2007 at 12:49 pm

I heard that anew law prohibiting leaving a pet in an unattended vehicle would be going into effect in 2007.
Is there any law like this?
Karen

Tom Voli on March 28, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Yes… I found this reported by the San Francisco Chronicle:

Also going into effect at the start of the New Year is a law designed to stiffen the penalties for pet owners who leave their animals in cars parked in the sun, and another that makes it illegal to tie a dog to a stationary object for more than three hours.

Supporters of the new dog-tethering law have argued that long-term tethering makes dogs more aggressive and more likely to bite. Depending on the specific offense, violation of this new law could result in an infraction or misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 per dog and up to six months in county jail.

However, there are some exceptions to the law, which allows for dogs to be tied to a pulley system; tethering to allow owners to complete temporary tasks; or on farms if it’s necessary for the animal’s safety.

The other pet law gives animal control officers authority to break into cars to save pets that are in distress, such as those inside vehicles parked outside in the sun. Previously, they would have had to call a law enforcement officer to enter the vehicle to save the animal.

Under the new law, the owner of an unattended hot vehicle containing a pet will face a fine of up to $500 and as much as six months in jail.

lisa on April 9, 2007 at 6:14 pm

We have a small motorhome that parks in regular parking spots. It has a generator and great ventilation. If the car is parked, and the dogs are fine, does the law still allow for police to break into the car?

Tom Voli on April 9, 2007 at 6:33 pm

This is a mortgage and real estate info blog. I doubt you will find an answer to that here.

MOE on April 14, 2007 at 10:01 am

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE I CAN FIND OUT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT AB 2244, I.E. WHEN IT TOOK EFFECT AND ALL INFORMATION ABOUT IT. THANK YOU

Tom Voli on April 14, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Easy to find…do a Google search.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2244_cfa_20000817_105856_sen_floor.html

MOE on April 14, 2007 at 1:44 pm

ok, thanks, but I need the information that pertains to Public Employees Retirement System that goes along with AB 2244. It was signed last year and suppose to take effect as of 01-01-2007. I found it once and now can’t find it.

mkr on April 16, 2007 at 1:09 pm

I net a lady today who informed me that in Calif it was now illegal to have a pet unrestrained in a vehicle and that the fine would be $750 and double that for a second offense. Can this rally be true?

Tom Voli on April 16, 2007 at 8:57 pm

If you read the thread of comments posted above you will see that this depends on where in California this occurs. In San Francisco you can be fined up to $1000.

mkr on April 17, 2007 at 7:00 am

Tom,

Maybe I didn’t phrase the question properly. According to what I have been told a pet needs to be retrained while riding in a car. Apparently there have been a number of accidents due to the animal distracting or otherwise imparing the driver by bouncing around.

I can’t find any law in the vehicle code concerning this. My concern is that even though I can’t find it as we all know “ignorance” of the law is not a defense in court and $750 is a bit more than I want to part with.

Thanks

Tom Voli on April 17, 2007 at 7:22 am

Get up to date on laws and legislation. For more information about tethering and vehicle laws, visit

Official California Legislature
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/

Bulent kolat on April 30, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Is there a case Law in California that says The Officer can not—- Lay and Wait— in order to give a ticket. How about officer hiding behind large objects so he is not visibale from the street??

Tom Voli on April 30, 2007 at 6:03 pm

Not sure about that. Can anybody else help with this?

pat on June 26, 2007 at 1:48 pm

New California Traffic Laws 2007
Netlore Archive: Hoax email purports to share a set of new California traffic laws effective January 1, 2007 (or July 1, 2007 in a later variant)

Description: Email hoax
Circulating since: January 2007
Status: False
Analysis: See below

Email example contributed by Cynthia A., 22 January 2007:

Subject: New California Traffic Laws for 2007

Pass this on…

1. Carpool lane: The 1st time $1068.50 starting 1/1/07 (NOT $271, posted on the highway is old). Don’t do it again because the 2nd time is going to be double. The 3rd time triple and the 4th time license suspended.

2. Incorrect lane change $380. Don’t cross lane on solid lanes or intersection.

3. Block intersection - $485

4. Driving on the shoulder - $450

5. Cell phone on the construction zone. - Double fine

6. Passengers over 18 not in the seatbelts - both passengers and driver get tickets [Click it or Ticket!]

7. Speeders can only drive 3 miles above the limit.

8. DUI = JAIL [Doesn't it always??????] 9. People driving on the left-most lane will be cited if they are going the same speed OR slower than the right lane.

Chris on July 12, 2007 at 10:21 am

I heard from a Deputy Councilwoman in LA that traffic signs in Los Angeles are “unenforceable” due to a new law. So even if a sign says “No Left Turn” you can’t get a ticket for it because it bars access to a public street. IS that correct? What law is it?

Thank you!

Comments are closed on this post.