Are New York Car Liens More Vulnerable To Theft?

Are New York car liens more vulnerable to fraud as a result of a new law (Chapter 493 of the Laws of 2012) that will take effect on June 17th ?  At a recent presentation hosted by New York Bankruptcy and Collection Attorney Rudy Meola, whose analysis of this issue provided the impetus for this blog, he said the answer is yes.

For a few years now, dealers have been agitated by the length of time it takes some financial institutions to clear title on used cars that dealers want to resell.  To address this problem, a new law will permit dealers who receive motor vehicles and arranges for the satisfaction of any security interest in these vehicles but for which a release of the security interest has not been issued to send proof to the Department of Motor Vehicles that a car lien has been satisfied.  Dealers must first provide lien holders with two weeks notice.  The Department will have only 15 days after receiving the dealer’s information to issue a clean certificate.  The dealers can satisfy their requirement by providing the DMV with evidence that the security interest has been satisfied such as by submitting evidence of an electronic funds transfer, a cashiers check or “other evidence as determined to be satisfactory by the Commissioner” so long as it is accompanied by evidence that the amount delivered to the lien holder satisfied the outstanding lien.  The strongest protection under the bill for credit unions is that car dealers who apply for the clean liens will be responsible for indemnifying the purchaser and lien holder of the vehicle.

So, if the law works as envisioned those institutions that quickly provide dealers with evidence that a car lien has been satisfied will not face any problems.  After all, dealers would be responsible for them if they get a DMV release and there is still an outstanding lien on the property.  Rudy’s concern is that this protection will not be sufficient to protect against crooks who forge the required dealer documentation and are able to turn around and sell stolen property with clear title.  Under Rudy’s scenario, the indemnification protections would not kick in because a car dealer never requested DMV to issue a new title in the first place.  For all intents and purposes, the credit union would have no realistic means of getting back any money for its unsatisfied car loan.  By the way, it’s a good thing Rudy uses his powers for good instead of evil.  He could cost us all a lot of money if he ever turns to the dark side.

As the law takes effect, we will have to keep an eye out to see if any of the worst case scenarios are realized.  In the meantime, the law underscores the importance of quickly releasing liens on car loans that have been satisfied.  I’ll be driving down to God’s country, aka Long Island, in my second-hand vehicle tomorrow on which one of our local credit unions holds the lien.  That means I’ll be back on Tuesday with another blog.

The CUSO Made Me Do It Is No Defense

On Thursday, the National Consumer Law Center sent a letter to NCUA criticizing 9 federally chartered credit unions for engaging in pay-day lending practices.  This was not the first time the Center had criticized these credit unions.  Lest our enemies outside the industry get too excited about this, the NCLC stressed that the vast majority of credit unions do not offer these loans.

Some of the criticized credit unions responded by pointing out that it was a CUSO they were affiliated with that was actually making the pay-day loans.  As for the other credit unions, they are exceeding the 18% interest rate cap on federal credit union loans only if the application fee charged is included in these calculations.

I find myself disagreeing a lot with the NCLC, but this is not one of those times.

Although the credit union activity was perfectly legal, it is a prime example of how credit unions can get in trouble if we abide by the letter rather than the spirit of the law.  NCUA permits credit unions to make short term loans that exceed the interest rate cap.  This regulation also permits credit unions to charge an application fee in the amount of up to $20.  In other words, there is a way of offering pay-day loan alternatives without offering pay-day loans.  To be sure, this alternative has been less than enthusiastically embraced by the industry as a whole, in part because its strictures mean that its cost outweigh its benefits for most credit unions.  But the answer is not to evade the spirit of NCUA’s regulations, but rather to work within the existing regulatory structure for a change that reflects a broad-based consensus.

Some of the 9 credit unions point out that they simply referred members to CUSOs that made the offending loans.  Chairwoman Matz pointed out that NCUA lacks the authority to directly regulate CUSOs.  Again, this is the type of response that lawyers love but that make the public so distrustful of lawyers.  If anyone could name me one person outside the credit union industry who knows what a CUSO is, I’d be more surprised than finding out that Stephen Hawkins is going to be on Dancing with the Stars.  Part of your third-party due diligence obligation should be to assess the reputational risk that a CUSO’s activities cause your credit union.  Explaining to a member who can’t repay a pay-day loan that the credit union told them about in the first place that the credit union isn’t the bad guy isn’t exactly the type of answer that is going to engender good will within your community.

Let’s keep in mind that there is still a proposed regulation out to give NCUA expanded authority to directly regulate CUSOs.  From everything we have been told, this proposal is all but dead.  However, if credit unions start hiding behind CUSOs to justify activities in which they themselves would not engage, NCUA might take another look at this whole issue.  I hope not.

FCU’s authorized to do PAC payroll deductions

Last week, I scared the bejeebies out of a few people in the office when I blogged about proposed regulations by New York State’s Department of Labor that would ban employers from making payroll deductions to facilitate voluntary political contributions.  I also said that we would have to get clarification on whether or not this regulation would be preempted by federal law.  With a little help from our good friends at CUNA, we were sent a Federal Election Commission opinion letter clearly indicating that regulations such as New York’s would be preempted as applied to contributions made for federal political activities (FEC Advisory Opinion 1982-29).  On that happy note, let’s all have a great week, shall we?

Another Drilling Roadblock?

Last week, another roadblock was put in the way of the State’s authorization of the use of high-powered hydraulic fracturing to mine natural gas in New York’s Southern Tier.  In the matter of Norse Energy Corp. USA v. Town of Dryden, New York’s Appellate Division, Third Department, which includes Albany and therefore has jurisdiction over many issues dealing with government powers, upheld a decision that individual towns could effectively ban hydraulic fracturing.  The case was brought by, among others, a mining company that had leased 22,000 acres of property in anticipation of the State approving the hydrofracking technique.

The case was brought after the Town of Dryden passed a local ordinance in 2011 banning all activities related to the exploration, production and storage of natural gas.  The decision is just the latest set back for applicants of drilling authorization.  With or without the Court’s ruling, no drilling can take place unless it is approved by the State’s Department of Environmental Conservation and the DEC’s review process has dragged on longer than anyone anticipated with no indication that it is going to end soon.  In fact, the Governor has shown about as much enthusiasm for approving hydraulic fracturing lately as a mother going to Chuck E. Cheese to celebrate Mother’s Day.

I’ve pointed out in previous blogs that credit unions, particularly in the Southern Tier, but ultimately in any area where gas drilling could take place, have a stake in monitoring the outcome of this debate.  Whether you are for or against hydrofracking, until we know for sure what impact the presence of drilling leases will have on the sale of mortgages to the secondary market, credit unions should take steps to ensure that their mortgage contracts adequately protect their right to approve or disapprove of any leases that a member may wish to enter into, just to cite one example.

In addition, while the ruling is certainly a set back, it may actually provide a pathway for the state to approve hydraulic fracturing in those communities that want it.  By giving localities the power to ban hydrofracking if they choose to, state regulators can now be assured that the process is only utilized in those communities that want it, which could help politicians looking for the best way to resolve this issue.

CFPB OKs Credit Cards For Mom: NY’s DFS Slams Payday Lending Proposal

The CFPB yesterday finalized regulations allowing credit card issuers to take into account an individual’s “reasonable expectation of access” to income or assets when reviewing applications, provided that the applicant is 21 years of age or older.  The rule is effective on the date of its publication in the Federal Register and compliance is required within six months.

When the Federal Reserve Board took the first crack at promulgating regulations under the CARD Act, it imposed an independent ability to repay requirement not only on those under the age of 21 seeking a credit card without a co-signor, but also on anyone wishing to obtain a credit card.  The regulations sparked a quick uproar as Congress was inundated with stories of stay-at-home moms that were denied access to credit cards without getting their husbands to co-sign.

The CFPB has now taken another look at the issue and has decided that the initial regulations got it wrong.  The bottom line from a compliance standpoint is that card issuers may, but don’t have to, take into account income that a spouse or partner reasonably expects access to when approving a credit card application.  The key to this regulation is not to make it more complicated than it is.  The final rule includes examples in the commentary of what does and does not constitute a reasonable expectation of access; the easiest way to understand this rule is to simply read the commentary.  But it’s really fairly straightforward.  For example, if a spouse stays at home but the working spouse’s money is deposited into a joint account, or shifted into an account that both spouses have access to, then it can be counted as reasonably expected income.

Remember that the reasonable expectation standard only applies to individuals 21 years of age or older, so the married 19 year old stay-at-home spouse cannot get a credit card even if she has reasonably expected access to her husband’s money.  Finally, you can still rely on the information on the credit card application to make your determination, so long as you don’t request the applicant’s household income.  The CFPB has determined that this term is too broad and might confuse people into thinking that they can include a roommate’s salary on the credit card application even though they have no access to his or her funds (hey, don’t shoot the messenger, these are the type of things the CFPB concerns itself with).

DFS Slams Payday Lending Bill

How opposed is New York’s Department of Financial Services to legalizing payday lending in New York State?  So opposed that it took the highly unusual step yesterday of writing a letter to Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver publicly opposing Assembly Bill A. 1113-a, legislation that would allow licensed check cashers to exceed New York’s 25% legal usury cap so they could offer payday loans to New York consumers.

The legislation, among other things, would cap the total amount of payday loans a person could have outstanding at any one time and would mandate that DFS administer a registry so that licensed check cashers can see how much money an individual has outstanding before approving a new loan.  The Department remains concerned that the bill would trap consumers in a cycle of debt since studies indicate that those persons most in need of payday loans often repeatedly access them.  “It is unsound public policy to allow unaffordable loans to be offered in New York simply because law violators who make worse loans have escaped prosecution to date.”

The Department went on to note that under existing law, credit unions and banks already offer short-term, small dollar emergency loans.  “These loans comply with New York’s usury laws and the lenders carefully consider credit and income factors to ensure that borrowers will be able to pay off loans in a reasonable time.”

 

More BS(A)?

My favorite credit union stories are the ones about those that started by opening up after church or work for a couple of hours each week. Deposits would be walked down to the bank at the end of the day. For all the contentiousness between banks and credit unions, the two industries have worked together for decades through such relationships and of course many credit unions still depend on them today.

Which brings us to a strange trend that started in West Virginia and Ohio has now spread to New York. Specifically, in an article in yesterday’s CU Times, Alloya’s Victor Vrigian, Jr. reported an increase in the number of banks ending correspondent account relationships with credit unions citing concerns over BSA compliance. I follow this stuff pretty closely and I know other people who do as well and there have been no publicly announced recent changes in BSA or OFAC regulations that would require banks to suddenly close down the correspondent accounts of credit unions.

Here’s what the BSA Examination Manual says about domestic correspondent accounts: “Because domestic banks must follow the same regulatory requirements, BSA/AML risks in domestic correspondent banking. . .are minimal in comparison to other types of financial services. . .” (page 179, FFIEC BSA/AML Examination Manual) There are some unique challenges to correspondent accounts, but given the typical risk profile of your average credit union member, the risks are minimal.

So what’s going on here? Well, one scenario is that banks are confusing the increased scrutiny of foreign correspondent accounts that major banks are experiencing with a need to clamp down on correspondent accounts in general. 31 USC 5318 mandates that banks increase due diligence when opening up accounts on behalf of foreign banks. For example, it was Standard Charter’s abysmal failure to properly oversee foreign money that got it in trouble with New York’s DFS and HSBC paid a huge fine for facilitating money laundering by Mexican cartels. But remember, there’s a huge difference between your friendly neighborhood credit union and a bank located in a country known for its drug smuggling.

Another possibility is that federal regulators are telling community banks to clamp down on correspondent accounts and simply haven’t gotten around to telling the NCUA yet. I hope this isn’t the case. The ultimate question is whether this recent uptick is nothing more than a coincidental surge in anti-credit union gusto on the part of local banks or a reflection of genuine confusion about the state of BSA requirements.

More Legal Trapdoors For Employers Looking To Hire

What should you be able to ask a potential employee during a job interview? Are there certain jobs for which inquiring about someone’s employment status is reasonable and others where it isn’t? Recently enacted legislation by the New York City Council as well as other proposal floating around at both the state and national level underscore that if some legislators have their way, you are going to need a lawyer in the room when interviewing prospective job applicants.

Exhibit one is a local law passed by the New York City Council over the veto of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who actually has extensive experience in hiring people in the private sector. This law makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate based on a job applicant’s employment status. The ordinance not only prohibits, with certain exceptions, an employer from publishing job postings listing current employment as a requirement for the job, but creates a private right of action and empowers the city to impose hefty fines on employers who violate these provisions. Employers are still allowed to inquire about a person’s employment status but if they do so the burden is on them to show why it is reasonable to be asking such questions in the first place. Remember, only our brethren based in New York City must comply with this new requirement. But, as anyone who attended our yearly walk-around the state capitol yesterday may have sensed, New York City carries a lot of weight in the legislature and proposals like this often end up being debated at the state level.

A second proposal being considered by the Council has a little more traction nationally. Recently, the Council held a hearing on a proposal banning the use of credit reports as part of the hiring process. A similar proposal has been introduced both in Congress and in the state legislature. The Fair Credit Reporting Act already mandates that applicants be put on notice when their credit reports are going to be reviewed as part of an employer’s due diligence. In expressing opposition to the proposal, a representative from the Bloomberg Administration pointed out that unlike similar proposals that have been enacted in states and localities across the country, the Council’s proposal makes no exception for credit unions, banks and other financial institutions for whom a job applicant’s ability to handle money is certainly something worth considering before making an offer.

Against the backdrop of the persistently high unemployment rates we are experiencing, proponents of these measures argue that disqualifying someone from job consideration due to their unemployment is, like racial characteristics, another example of disqualifying someone based on attributes over which they have no control. The problem with this logic is that it categorically assumes that employers discriminate against job applicants. This conveniently overlooks the fact that there are many situations where someone’s credit report or employment status is relevant, particularly when you are trying to whittle down a field of more than one qualified applicant. Furthermore, one of the reasons why this country is so much more productive on a per capita basis than every other nation in the world (including China) is because we try not to make it too expensive to hire and fire people. The more well intended legislators place legalistic straight jackets on what can and can’t be considered when making determinations, the more expensive it’s going to be to hire anyone, and that is bad news for the unemployed.

Updated: New York’s Levy And Restraint Laws: The Gift That Keeps On Giving

I’m updating this morning’s blog to clarify that the inflation adjusted amount of funds that the state now changes every three years only applies to exempt funds  that have been deposited electronically or by direct deposit within the last 45 days.  The threshold for this exemption was originally set at $2,500.  I don’t want to make a confusing statute even worse.

 New York’s levy and restraint laws involve, in the words of Nassau County District Court Judge Fred J. Hirsh, ”complex and convoluted practices and procedures to determine if funds on deposit in a judgment debtors bank account are exempt from execution pursuant to CPLR 5222-a.”  Because of pending changes to New York’s minimum wage law and a case to be decided by New York’s Court of Appeals, this statutory framework, which judging by the number of calls to the Association’s compliance hotline is among the most vexing state-level requirements, is about to get another turn in the spotlight.

Although I suspect that most of the New York readers of this blog already know this, remember that under New York law a statutorily prescribed minimum amount of funds is automatically exempt from levy and restraint.  This amount is adjusted for inflation every three years and now stands at a hefty $2,625 for statutorily exempt payments that were deposited electronically or by direct deposit within the last forty-five days, 
In addition, when a judgment creditor seeks to restrain or levy an account it must give the credit union exemption claim forms that are passed on to the member.  The failure to provide such forms makes the levy or restraint void, meaning it is not to be honored.

What happens when a financial institution mistakenly honors a restraining notice that should actually have been ignored because the member did not have money in the account above the statutory threshold or didn’t receive the exemption claim form?  Can the bank or credit union be sued?  If so, can the suit be part of a class action lawsuit seeking damages for the illegal practices or is the member constrained by a special proceeding?  Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified these questions to New York’s highest court, its Court of Appeals.

You see, federal courts are only supposed to interpret and impose well settled state law.  In Cruz v. TD Bank, NA, account holders are trying to start class action lawsuits alleging that banks can be sued when they wrongly impose restraints on accounts that don’t contain money in excess of the statutory threshold.  Another case involving Capital One alleges that the bank restrained funds on an account below the statutory threshold.

I know credit unions continue to make a good faith effort to comply with the statute, but in my ever so humble opinion, the statute clearly protects financial institutions that make honest mistakes in implementing this Rube Goldberg contraption intended to protect debtors who have legally binding judgments against them.  Let’s hope the Court of Appeals doesn’t expand the potential scope of liability in an area of the law that already imposes too much cost on credit unions on a daily basis.

New York’s new state budget will also have an impact on levy and restraints.  The Legislature and the Governor agreed to raise the state’s minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 an hour over the next three years, beginning with an increase to $8 by the end of 2013.  The minimum amount of money exempted from levy and restraint is equal to the higher of 240 times the federal or state minimum wage “in effect at the time the earnings are payable.”  This means that not only will the exemption be going up, but because it will be going up in stages, whoever handles your levy and restraints is going to have to be cognizant of when the wage increases kick in.  Hopefully this is something that New York’s Department of Financial Services will provide notice of on its website.

New York’s Levy And Restraint Laws: The Gift That Keeps On Giving

New York’s levy and restraint laws involve, in the words of Nassau County District Court Judge Fred J. Hirsh, ”complex and convoluted practices and procedures to determine if funds on deposit in a judgment debtors bank account are exempt from execution pursuant to CPLR 5222-a.”  Because of pending changes to New York’s minimum wage law and a case to be decided by New York’s Court of Appeals, this statutory framework, which judging by the number of calls to the Association’s compliance hotline is among the most vexing state-level requirements, is about to get another turn in the spotlight.

Although I suspect that most of the New York readers of this blog already know this, remember that under New York law a statutorily prescribed minimum amount of funds is automatically exempt from levy and restraint.  This amount is adjusted for inflation every three years and now stands at a hefty $2,625 for .statutorily exempt payments that were deposited electronically or by direct deposit within the last forty-five days, 
  In addition, when a judgment creditor seeks to restrain or levy an account it must give the credit union exemption claim forms that are passed on to the member.  The failure to provide such forms makes the levy or restraint void, meaning it is not to be honored.

What happens when a financial institution mistakenly honors a restraining notice that should actually have been ignored because the member did not have money in the account above the statutory threshold or didn’t receive the exemption claim form?  Can the bank or credit union be sued?  If so, can the suit be part of a class action lawsuit seeking damages for the illegal practices or is the member constrained by a special proceeding?  Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified these questions to New York’s highest court, its Court of Appeals.

You see, federal courts are only supposed to interpret and impose well settled state law.  In Cruz v. TD Bank, NA, account holders are trying to start class action lawsuits alleging that banks can be sued when they wrongly impose restraints on accounts that don’t contain money in excess of the statutory threshold.  Another case involving Capital One alleges that the bank restrained funds on an account below the statutory threshold.

I know credit unions continue to make a good faith effort to comply with the statute, but in my ever so humble opinion, the statute clearly protects financial institutions that make honest mistakes in implementing this Rube Goldberg contraption intended to protect debtors who have legally binding judgments against them.  Let’s hope the Court of Appeals doesn’t expand the potential scope of liability in an area of the law that already imposes too much cost on credit unions on a daily basis.

New York’s new state budget will also have an impact on levy and restraints.  The Legislature and the Governor agreed to raise the state’s minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 an hour over the next three years, beginning with an increase to $8 by the end of 2013.  The minimum amount of money exempted from levy and restraint is equal to the higher of 240 times the federal or state minimum wage “in effect at the time the earnings are payable.”  This means that not only will the exemption be going up, but because it will be going up in stages, whoever handles your levy and restraints is going to have to be cognizant of when the wage increases kick in.  Hopefully this is something that New York’s Department of Financial Services will provide notice of on its website.

Force-Placed Frenzy

This morning I can’t help thinking that regulators sometimes act like the guy playing defense who runs onto a pile of tacklers about five seconds after the play ended just so he can be part of the action.  The latest industry to be taken through the mill for its perceived excesses is the force-placed insurance industry.  The Wall Street Journal reports that later today the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which oversees the ostensibly bankrupt Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, will issue proposed regulations banning fees and commissions paid by insurers to financial institutions.  The proposal will have a 60-day comment period.  Fannie and Freddie  are responsible for at least half of all outstanding mortgages, so any regulations they make will become the defacto industry standard.  But the FHFA is simply the latest regulator to clamp down on the industry.

Last week, New York’s Department of Financial Services announced a multi-million dollar settlement with Assurant, Inc., the nation’s largest force-placed insurer, under which it will pay a $14 million penalty to the Department.  Among the practices criticized by the Department was the paying of bank “expenses” related to force-placed insurance.  These expenses typically represented a percentage of the premium imposed on the home owner.

But wait, there’s more.  Not to be outdone, as part of its mortgaging reform regulations, effective January 2014 the CFPB is requiring that servicers managing escrow accounts pay the insurance premiums for delinquent insurance where such premiums are cheaper than the cost of force-placed insurance.  So, in other words, in the span of about six weeks, we have three separate actions to address the same problem.  Lost in all this regulatory frenzy is the wacky idea that there is no need for reforming the industry in the first place since the only time consumers have to pay for force-placed insurance is when they neglect to pay their bills.

To be sure, New York’s Department of Financial Services points out that commissions and fees paid to financial institutions do little to keep the rates of such insurance reasonable, but to be blunt, people should have to pay higher forced-placed insurance as a disincentive for not paying their insurance premiums in the first place.  There is nothing more difficult to deal with than an uninsured house after a storm has hit.  Is this another example of forgetting that the consumer has a responsibility to pay his or her bills?  I’d say yes.

Johnson Not to Seek Re-election

South Dakota Democrat Tim Johnson is reportedly going to announce later today that he will not seek a fourth term in the U.S. Senate.  Johnson is the Chairman of the Senate Banks Committee and there is already speculation about who may succeed him should the Democrats hold on to the Senate majority.  Aside from the banking angle, Johnson’s retirement adds one more name to the list of retiring Democratic Senators whose seats are potential Republican pick ups.

Unsealed Gas Drilling Settlement Underscores Need For CU Vigilence

As readers of this blog will know, I have consistently urged credit unions in areas where members are being asked to lease property to hydro-fracking companies to take steps to protect the value of their mortgage collateral.  Recently, documents unsealed by a Pennsylvania court involving drilling on the Pennsylvania side of the Marcellus Shale demonstrates precisely why this is so important.

Earlier this week, a judge unsealed a settlement between a Pennsylvania family and Marcellus Shale development companies.  The $750,000 settlement, which the companies wanted to keep confidential, stemmed from allegations that the family’s property was made worthless and they suffered health problems as a result of drilling, which took place on adjacent property.  According to the Wall Street Journal, a lawsuit technically was never filed and as part of the settlement the family also agreed that any future health claims would be settled through arbitration.

Now, I have no idea about the underlying merits of the claims, but I do know that for those of you who don’t think drilling could have consequences for your lending practice, the settlement underscores yet again why this type of thinking is just plain wrong.  As the months turn into years, it’s possible that Governor Cuomo will never lift New York’s moratorium on high-powered hydro-fracking, but if he does, it will be too late to do anything about the leases that your members have already granted.

With that backdrop in mind, the case demonstrates the need for appraisers who are skilled in assessing the impact that gas drilling may have on property values in a given area.  Remember, the people who settled in this case didn’t even have gas drilling taking place on their own property, but their property value was impacted by the activity nonetheless.

Also, as the holder of the mortgage, the credit union has to give itself a seat at the table in any lease negotiations.  At the very least, members should be put on notice that any agreement to enter into a gas drilling lease requires the approval of the credit union.  If you do find yourself reviewing a lease agreement, there are further stipulations you can try to negotiate including making sure that the mortgage is one of the first things paid off with any gas drilling royalties.

Finally, the big question remains:  will Fannie and Freddie be willing to accept mortgages that are subject to gas leases as an acceptable exception to title?  Remember that hydro-fracking has been taking place across the country and I haven’t been able to find a single recorded case of Fannie or Freddie refusing to take a mortgage.  In addition, my brethren in Pennsylvania haven’t had any issues with the GSE’s yet.  But, when you start hearing about out-of-court settlements involving several hundred thousand dollars, it is hard to believe that this won’t at least raise some eyebrows in the secondary market community.  Remember that even if a mortgage is sold to Fannie and Freddie, they are typically going to have the right to make a lender repurchase property that is subject to environmental hazards.

NYS Budget Close to Done

If press reports are accurate, legislators could be voting on budget bills to enact the 2013-2014 State Budget by Sunday or early Monday.  The unofficial deadline is Passover.  The budget deal calls for a little more than $135 billion in spending.  If all goes according to plan, the Legislature will be taking three weeks off, meaning that everyone will be good and refreshed for our upcoming Government Affairs Conference.