RÉSUMÉ DIGEST
SB 35 2024 Regular Session Morris
Present law provides that when a litigious right is assigned, the debtor may extinguish his
obligation by paying to the assignee the price the assignee paid for the assignment, with
interest from the time of the assignment.
Present law provides that a right is litigious, for that purpose, when it is contested in a suit
already filed.
Present law provides that the debtor may not thus extinguish his obligation when the
assignment has been made to a co-owner of the assigned right, or to a possessor of the thing
subject to the litigious right.
Proposed law would have retained present law but would have included extinguishing an
obligation when the assignment is of a promissory note.
Would have become effective on August 1, 2024.
(Proposed to amend C.C. Art. 2652)
VETO MESSAGE:
"Please be advised that I have vetoed Senate Bill 35 of the 2024 Regular Session. Senate Bill
35 should be called the "Debt Collectors Employment Protection Act" as it is solely aimed
at protecting and enriching predatory debt collection practices in this state. Indeed, rather
than allowing a debtor to negotiate an equitable settlement on debts owed, this bill allows
the debtor and their debt to be continuously bought and sold down a never-ending river of
indebtedness. In addition, SB 35 would needlessly extend and continue ongoing litigation
(thereby further enriching the trial lawyers and plaintiffs' bar) by incentivizing ever-more
predatory debt scavengers, to continue to try to vulture every last morsel of meat off the
debtor's bones. While many of our citizens are already pinching pennies to make ends meet,
we should not be forcing them to choose between food and fuel or debilitating debt.
The Legislature and LABI agreed with this position in 2016 when the Louisiana House of
Representatives resoundingly rejected this legislation by a vote of 23-65, with at least 25
current legislators amongst those "no" votes.
We think the 2016 Legislature got it right when it rejected this legislation as imprudent,
unnecessary, and counter-productive to efforts towards meaningful tort reform and consumer
protection. For these reasons, I have vetoed SB 35 and return it to the Legislature."