Compare Versions

PDF |Add To My Favorites | print page

SB-217 Evidence: admissibility.(2017-2018)

Current Version: 07/10/17 - Chaptered Compare Versions information image


Senate Bill No. 217

An act to amend Section 1120 of the Evidence Code, relating to evidence.

[ Approved by Governor  July 10, 2017. Filed with Secretary of State  July 10, 2017. ]


SB 217, Wieckowski. Evidence: admissibility.
Under existing law, when a person consults a mediator or mediation service for the purpose of retaining mediation services, or when parties agree to conduct and participate in a mediation for the purpose of compromising, settling, or resolving a civil dispute, anything said in the course of the consultation for mediation services or in the course of mediation is not admissible in evidence nor subject to discovery in any other civil action or proceeding. Existing law provides that evidence that is otherwise admissible is not inadmissible solely because it was introduced or used in a mediation or mediation consultation.
Existing law requires that in marital nullity, dissolution, and legal separation matters, each party serve on the other party a declaration of disclosure that includes a characterization of all assets and liabilities, as specified.
This bill would provide that the above-described declarations of disclosure are admissible as evidence even if they are prepared for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation or a mediation consultation. The bill would also declare the intent of the Legislature that the bill codify the holding of a specified court case.
Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: NO   Fiscal Committee: NO   Local Program: NO  

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:


 Section 1120 of the Evidence Code is amended to read:

 (a) Evidence otherwise admissible or subject to discovery outside of a mediation or a mediation consultation shall not be or become inadmissible or protected from disclosure solely by reason of its introduction or use in a mediation or a mediation consultation.
(b) This chapter does not limit any of the following:
(1) The admissibility of an agreement to mediate a dispute.
(2) The effect of an agreement not to take a default or an agreement to extend the time within which to act or refrain from acting in a pending civil action.
(3) Disclosure of the mere fact that a mediator has served, is serving, will serve, or was contacted about serving as a mediator in a dispute.
(4) The admissibility of declarations of disclosure required by Sections 2104 and 2105 of the Family Code, even if prepared for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation or a mediation consultation.

SEC. 2.

 It is the intent of the Legislature that this act codify the holding of Lappe v. Superior Court (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 774.