Existing law requires the county recorder, upon payment of proper fees and taxes, to record any instrument, paper, or notice that is authorized or required to be recorded, provided that the instrument, paper, or notice meets certain standards. Existing law also requires all documents authorized by law to be recorded in the official records of a county to contain specified information.

This bill would require the documents described above that are rerecorded to be executed and acknowledged or verified as new documents, unless otherwise exempted, as specified, presented solely to correct a rerecording sequence, as specified, or presented solely to make a minor correction, as defined, with a corrective affidavit. The bill would require the corrective affidavit to satisfy certain requirements, including a requirement that the corrective affidavit be certified under penalty of perjury. The bill would require each rerecorded instrument, paper, or notice to include a cover sheet and to state the reason for rerecording.

By imposing new duties upon local county officials with respect to the recordation of documents and by expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.

Existing law requires the county recorder, upon payment of proper fees and taxes, to record any instrument, paper, or notice that is authorized or required to be recorded, provided that the instrument, paper, or notice meets certain standards. Existing law also requires all documents authorized by law to be recorded in the official records of a county to contain specified information.

This bill would require the documents described above that are rerecorded to be executed and acknowledged or verified as new documents, unless otherwise exempted, as specified, presented solely to correct a rerecording sequence, as specified, or presented solely to make a minor correction, as defined, with a corrective affidavit. The bill would require the corrective affidavit to satisfy certain requirements, including a requirement that the corrective affidavit be certified under penalty of perjury. The bill would require each rerecorded instrument, paper, or notice to include a cover sheet and to state the reason for rerecording.

By imposing new duties upon local county officials with respect to the recordation of documents and by expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.

Existing law requires the county recorder, upon payment of proper fees and taxes, to record any instrument, paper, or notice that is authorized or required to be recorded, provided that the instrument, paper, or notice meets certain standards. Existing law also requires all documents authorized by law to be recorded in the official records of a county to contain specified information.

This bill would require the documents described above that are rerecorded to be executed and acknowledged or verified as new documents, unless otherwise exempted, as specified, presented solely to correct a rerecording sequence, as specified, or presented solely to make a minor correction, as defined, with a corrective affidavit. The bill would require the corrective affidavit to satisfy certain requirements, including a requirement that the corrective affidavit be certified under penalty of perjury. The bill would require each rerecorded instrument, paper, or notice to include a cover sheet and to state the reason for rerecording.

By imposing new duties upon local county officials with respect to the recordation of documents and by expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.

Existing law requires the county recorder, upon payment of proper fees and taxes, to record any instrument, paper, or notice that is authorized or required to be recorded, provided that the instrument, paper, or notice meets certain standards. Existing law also requires all documents authorized by law to be recorded in the official records of a county to contain specified information.

This bill would require the documents described above that are rerecorded to be executed and acknowledged or verified as new documents, unless otherwise exempted, as specified, presented solely to correct a rerecording sequence, or presented solely to make a minor correction, as defined, with a corrective affidavit. The bill would require the corrective affidavit to satisfy certain requirements, including a requirement that the corrective affidavit be certified under penalty of perjury. The bill would require each rerecorded instrument, paper, or notice to include a cover sheet and to state the reason for rerecording.

By imposing new duties upon local county officials with respect to the recordation of documents and by expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law requires the county recorder, upon payment of proper fees and taxes, to record any instrument, paper, or notice that is authorized or required to be recorded, provided that the instrument, paper, or notice meets certain standards. Existing law also requires all documents authorized by law to be recorded in the official records of a county to contain specified information.

This bill would require the documents described above that are rerecorded to be executed and acknowledged or verified as new documents, unless otherwise provided, and to contain a notation on the face specifying the reason for the rerecording. exempted, as specified, presented solely to correct a rerecording sequence, or presented solely to make a minor correction, as defined, with a corrective affidavit. The bill would require the corrective affidavit to satisfy certain requirements, including a requirement that the corrective affidavit be certified under penalty of perjury. The bill would require each rerecorded instrument, paper, or notice to include a cover sheet and to state the reason for rerecording.

By imposing new duties upon local county officials with respect to the recordation of documents, documents and by expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law requires the county recorder, upon payment of proper fees and taxes, to record any instrument, paper, or notice that is authorized or required to be recorded, provided that the instrument, paper, or notice meets certain standards. Existing law also requires all documents authorized by law to be recorded in the official records of a county to contain specified information.

This bill would require the documents described above that are rerecorded to be executed and acknowledged or verified as new documents, unless otherwise provided, and to contain a notation on the face specifying the reason for the rerecording.

By imposing new duties upon local county officials with respect to the recordation of documents, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1974

Author:(Gallagher)

As Amended Ver:August 19, 2016

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: L. GOV.

SUMMARY: Establishes procedures for the re-recording of recorded documents.

The Senate amendments revise and recast the provisions of the bill to provide for a more comprehensive procedure for re-recording documents and to specify documents that are exempt from this procedure but are, instead, subject to more limited requirements.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

COMMENTS:

1. Bill Summary. This bill establishes procedures for the re-recording of recorded documents. The bill requires a document that is presented to a county recorder for re-recording to be executed and acknowledged or verified as a new document, unless any of the following apply:
   1. The document is exempt from acknowledgement and execution under existing law;
   2. The document is presented solely to correct a recording sequence; or,
   3. The document is presented solely to make a minor correction.

This bill specifies, pursuant to b), above, that the intent of the parties with regard to the priority of recorded documents shall be controlling regardless of the sequence of recording by a county recorder or the sequence of recording specified in instructions given by a submitter to a county recorder. This provision is declaratory of existing law, and any re-recording of documents to change the sequential numbers assigned to a document by the recorder shall not require the document to be executed and acknowledged or verified as a new document.

A document presented solely to make a minor correction must be accompanied by a corrective affidavit, which must be attached to the original recorded instrument, paper, or notice; set out the information corrected; be certified by the party submitting the affidavit under penalty of perjury; and, be acknowledged pursuant to existing law.

The bill defines "minor correction" to include any of the following:

• 1. An incorrect or missing address of the party to which the instrument, paper, or notice is to be returned following recording pursuant to existing law;
  2. A clarification of illegible text pursuant to existing law;
  3. An incorrect or missing printed or typed name of an individual or entity near the signature pursuant to existing law; or,
  4. An incorrect or missing documentary transfer tax amount due pursuant to existing law.

This bill requires each re-recorded instrument, paper, or notice to include a cover sheet that complies with existing law governing the format of documents submitted for recording and states the reason for re-recording. This bill makes conforming changes to existing law, and provides that no reimbursement is required by the bill.

This bill is sponsored by the County Recorders Association of California.

1. Author's Statement. According to the author, "Under current law, there is no codified way to re-record documents in county recorder offices. This bill would set a standard procedure for re-recording documents. This bill will ensure records remain accurate when being re-recorded and will help in keeping local government efficient."
2. Background. County recorders are responsible generally for examining and recording all documents that deal with establishing ownership of land in counties. This includes the recording of title documents, notes, and home loan payoffs by homeowners, title companies, mortgage companies and government agencies involved in real estate transactions.

Documents such as deeds, loan documents, easements, power of attorney, liens, and other documents which affect title to or possession of real property need to be re-recorded when there is an error in a previously recorded document or there needs to be a change in name or other details. There is no formal procedure in statute to re-record documents. According to the County Recorders Association of California, sponsor of this measure, county recorders each have their own procedure, which creates uncertainty over the accuracy and correct procedure for re-recording.

1. Arguments in Support. The County Recorders Association of California, sponsor of this measure, writes, "AB 1974 would create a formal procedure for re-recording documents. This will end consumer confusion when fixing errors in previously recorded documents."
2. Arguments in Opposition. None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0004776

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1974

Author: Gallagher (R)

Amended: 8/19/16 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/15/16

AYES: Hertzberg, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Lara, Moorlach, Pavley

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 5/5/16 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: County recorder: recordation of documents

SOURCE: County Recorders Association of California

DIGEST: This bill specifies procedures for the re-recording of recorded documents.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/19/16 narrow the cases in which a document may be re-recorded and makes other related and technical changes.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes a recorder in each county that is responsible for examining and recording all documents that deal with establishing ownership of land in counties, such as title documents.
2. Prescribes procedures for the recording of documents, specifically:
   1. A document must be submitted to a county recorder along with the necessary recordation fees.
   2. If the document meets the requirements in statute or local ordinance that apply to that type of document, the recorder must record it.
   3. The recording statutes specify in minute detail the form and requirements that documents must meet.
3. Requires some recorded documents to be acknowledged—affirmed by the parties to the transaction as their action—and allows the recording of other documents to be done without acknowledgement.

This bill:

1. Requires a document that is presented to a county recorder for re-recording to be executed and acknowledged or verified as a new document, unless any of the following apply:
   1. The document is exempt from acknowledgement and execution under current law,
   2. The document is presented solely to correct a recording sequence, or
   3. The document is presented solely to make a minor correction without acknowledgement or execution if the document is presented along with a corrective affidavit that sets out the information corrected, is certified by the party submitting the affidavit under penalty of perjury, and is acknowledged by the person presenting it.
2. Defines minor corrections to include changes to:
   1. An incorrect or missing address if the rerecorded document will be returned to the party whose information is being corrected,
   2. An incorrect or missing amount of tax due upon the recording of the document, and
   3. A clarification of illegible text.
3. Requires the re-recorded document to include a cover sheet that states the reason for re-recording.
4. Clarifies that changing the sequential numbers assigned to a document do not require the document to be executed as a new document.
5. Provides that, when correcting a recording sequence, the intent of the parties regarding the priority of recorded documents shall be controlling regardless of the sequence of recording, and state that this provision is declaratory of existing law.

Background

Recorded documents sometimes need to be re-recorded in order to correct an error in a previously recorded document or to change a name or other details. The County Recorders Association estimates that annually about 3,500 documents in California are re-recorded. There is no formal procedure to re-record documents in statute, leading county recorders to establish their own procedures for doing so that can vary across counties. Some counties have allowed minor corrections to recorded documents without requiring acknowledgement and execution of a new document, while others require the document to be recorded as if it were a new document. Entities such as mortgage brokers, lenders, and escrow officers may do business in multiple counties, so the County Recorders Association wants to standardize this process across all counties.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. Recorded documents are used to inform determinations of property rights and other legal matters. But errors in recorded documents occasionally occur, and state law does not specify a process for re-recording documents in order to correct those errors. This lack of a defined process leads to potential uncertainty over the accuracy or veracity of the re-recorded documents. In addition, lenders and other entities that frequently record documents in multiple counties face a lack of consistency across counties when trying to correct errors in recorded documents. AB 1974 establishes a standardized process for county recorders to follow when re-recording documents and provides a streamlined process for correcting minor errors, such as an incorrect name. This streamlined process avoids the need to track down all parties to a recorded document for a new acknowledgement and execution, saving time and money. At the same time, AB 1974 includes a strong safeguard to ensure that this process is not abused by requiring certification under penalty of perjury that the information is true. AB 1974 is a commonsense fix to provide a guarantee of accuracy by codifying practices that many county recorders are already following.
2. Balancing act. The streamlined process in AB 1974 reduces the time and money needed to make minor corrections, relative to requiring the document to be re-recorded as new. But that process only applies to a narrow set of circumstances, such as some incorrect addresses. There are other corrections that this bill does not authorize to be changed through the streamlined process, such as corrections to parcel numbers, that are seen as uncontroversial by some. In their view, completing an entirely new recording for these changes could have significant costs and could delay the ability of assessors to promptly and correctly assess property. Others see the potential for significant consequences if those changes are fraudulently made. Historically, county recorders and county counsels have followed the processes that they feel are necessary to insure the integrity of recorded documents.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/22/16)

County Recorders Association of California (source)

California Land Surveyors Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/22/16)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 5/5/16

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Beth Gaines

Prepared by: Anton Favorini-Csorba / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119

8/22/16 22:41:11

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1974

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/15/16

AYES: Hertzberg, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Lara, Moorlach, Pavley

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 5/5/16 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: County Recorders Association of California

DIGEST: This bill specifies procedures for the re-recording of recorded documents.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes a recorder in each county that is responsible for examining and recording all documents that deal with establishing ownership of land in counties, such as title documents.
2. Prescribes procedures for the recording of documents, specifically:
   1. A document must be submitted to a county recorder along with the necessary recordation fees.
   2. If the document meets the requirements in statute or local ordinance that apply to that type of document, the recorder must record it.
   3. The recording statutes specify in minute detail the form and requirements that documents must meet.
3. Requires some recorded documents to be acknowledged—affirmed by the parties to the transaction as their action—and allows the recording of other documents to be done without acknowledgement.

This bill:

1. Requires a document that is presented to a county recorder for re-recording to be executed and acknowledged or verified as a new document, unless any of the following apply:
   1. The document is exempt from acknowledgement and execution under current law,
   2. The document is presented solely to correct a recording sequence, or
   3. The document is presented solely to make a minor correction.
2. Allows a document to be re-recorded without acknowledgement or execution if the document is presented along with a corrective affidavit that sets out the information corrected, is certified by the party submitting the affidavit under penalty of perjury, and is acknowledged by the person presenting it.
3. Defines minor corrections to include certain changes to incorrect or missing names, an incorrect or missing amount of tax due upon the recording of the document, or a clarification of illegible text.
4. Requires the re-recorded document to include a cover sheet that states the reason for re-recording.

Background

Recorded documents sometimes need to be re-recorded in order to correct an error in a previously recorded document or to change a name or other details. The County Recorders Association estimates that annually about 3,500 documents in California are re-recorded. There is no formal procedure to re-record documents in statute, leading county recorders to establish their own procedures for doing so that can vary across counties. Some counties have allowed minor corrections to recorded documents without requiring acknowledgement and execution of a new document, while others require the document to be recorded as if it were a new document. Entities such as mortgage brokers, lenders, and escrow officers may do business in multiple counties, so the County Recorders Association wants to standardize this process across all counties.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. Recorded documents are used to inform determinations of property rights and other legal matters. But errors in recorded documents occasionally occur, and state law does not specify a process for re-recording documents in order to correct those errors. This lack of a defined process leads to potential uncertainty over the accuracy or veracity of the re-recorded documents. In addition, lenders and other entities that frequently record documents in multiple counties face a lack of consistency across counties when trying to correct errors in recorded documents. AB 1974 establishes a standardized process for county recorders to follow when re-recording documents and provides a streamlined process for correcting minor errors, such as an incorrect name. This streamlined process avoids the need to track down all parties to a recorded document for a new acknowledgement and execution, saving time and money. At the same time, AB 1974 includes a strong safeguard to ensure that this process is not abused by requiring certification under penalty of perjury that the information is true. AB 1974 is a commonsense fix to provide a guarantee of accuracy by codifying practices that many county recorders are already following.
2. Balancing act. The streamlined process in AB 1974 reduces the time and money needed to make minor corrections, relative to requiring the document to be re-recorded as new. But that process only applies to a narrow set of circumstances, such as an incorrect name. There are other corrections that this bill does not authorize to be changed through the streamlined process, such as corrections to parcel numbers, that are seen as uncontroversial by some. In their view, completing an entirely new recording for these changes could have significant costs and could delay the ability of assessors to promptly and correctly assess property. Others see the potential for significant consequences if those changes are fraudulently made. Historically, county recorders and county counsels have followed the processes that they feel are necessary to insure the integrity of recorded documents. It is unclear whether this bill strikes the right balance between guarding against fraud and expediting uncontroversial changes.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/3/16)

County Recorders Association of California (source)

California Land Surveyors Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/27/16)

California Land Title Association

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 5/5/16

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Beth Gaines

Prepared by:

8/3/16 18:54:27

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE

Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

County recorder: recordation of documents

Specifies procedures for the re-recording of recorded documents.

Background

State law establishes a recorder in each county. County recorders are responsible generally for examining and recording all documents that deal with establishing ownership of land in counties. This includes the recording of title documents, notes, and home loan payoffs by homeowners, title companies, mortgage companies and government agencies involved in real estate transactions. Recording a document provides public notice of ownership and a verifiable chain of possession for property.

State law prescribes procedures for the recording of documents. In order to be recorded, a document is submitted to a county recorder along with the necessary recordation fees. If the document meets the requirements in statute or local ordinance that apply to that type of document, the recorder must record it. The recording statutes specify in minute detail the form and requirements that documents must meet.

Many documents must be acknowledged—affirmed by the parties to the transaction as their action—and executed by following specific procedures. For example, a deed conveying a property to a government agency must be accompanied by a specific form that affirms the consent of the individual transferring the property. However, some documents, such as patents, leases for oil or minerals, and some court judgments, are exempt from the acknowledgement requirement. After following any required procedures, the document is then recorded and kept in the books of the county recorder’s office.

Recorded documents sometimes need to be re-recorded in order to correct an error in a previously recorded document or to change a name or other details. The County Recorders Association estimates that annually about 3,500 documents in California are re-recorded. There is no formal procedure to re-record documents in statute, leading county recorders to establish their own procedures for doing so that can vary across counties. Some counties have allowed minor corrections to recorded documents without requiring acknowledgement and execution of a new document, while others require the document to be recorded as if it were a new document. Entities such as mortgage brokers, lenders, and escrow officers may do business in multiple counties, so the County Recorders Association wants to standardize this process across all counties.

Proposed Law

Assembly Bill 1974 specifies a procedure for re-recording documents. Specifically, AB 1974 requires a document that is presented to a county recorder for re-recording to be executed and acknowledged or verified as a new document. This requirement does not apply if any of the following apply:

• The document is exempt from acknowledgement and execution under current law,
• The document is presented solely to correct a recording sequence, or
• The document is presented solely to make a minor correction.

AB 1974 defines a separate process for making a minor correction. Specifically, a document may be re-recorded without acknowledgement or execution if the document is presented along with a corrective affidavit that sets out the information corrected, is certified by the party submitting the affidavit under penalty of perjury, and is acknowledged by the person presenting it. AB 1974 defines minor corrections to include certain changes to incorrect or missing names, an incorrect or missing amount of tax due upon the recording of the document, or a clarification of illegible text. The re-recorded document must include a cover sheet that states the reason for re-recording.

State Revenue Impact

No estimate.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. Recorded documents are used to inform determinations of property rights and other legal matters. But errors in recorded documents occasionally occur, and state law does not specify a process for re-recording documents in order to correct those errors. This lack of a defined process leads to potential uncertainty over the accuracy or veracity of the re-recorded documents. In addition, lenders and other entities that frequently record documents in multiple counties face a lack of consistency across counties when trying to correct errors in recorded documents. AB 1974 establishes a standardized process for county recorders to follow when re-recording documents and provides a streamlined process for correcting minor errors, such as an incorrect name. This streamlined process avoids the need to track down all parties to a recorded document for a new acknowledgement and execution, saving time and money. At the same time, AB 1974 includes a strong safeguard to ensure that this process is not abused by requiring certification under penalty of perjury that the information is true. AB 1974 is a commonsense fix to provide a guarantee of accuracy by codifying practices that many county recorders are already following.

2. Balancing act. The streamlined process in AB 1974 reduces the time and money needed to make minor corrections, relative to requiring the document to be re-recorded as new. But that process only applies to a narrow set of circumstances, such as an incorrect name. There are other corrections that this bill does not authorize to be changed through the streamlined process, such as corrections to parcel numbers, that are seen as uncontroversial by some. In their view, completing an entirely new recording for these changes could have significant costs and could delay the ability of assessors to promptly and correctly assess property. Others see the potential for significant consequences if those changes are fraudulently made. Historically, county recorders and county counsels have followed the processes that they feel are necessary to insure the integrity of recorded documents. It is unclear whether this bill strikes the right balance between guarding against fraud and expediting uncontroversial changes.

3. Funding the mandate. The California Constitution generally requires the state to reimburse local agencies for their costs when the state imposes new programs or additional duties on them. AB 1974 requires the corrective affidavit to be certified under penalty of perjury. By creating a new crime, AB 1974 also creates a new state-mandated program. But the bill partially disclaims the state's responsibility for reimbursing local governments for enforcing these new crimes. That's consistent with the California Constitution, which says that the state does not have to reimburse local governments for the costs of new crimes (Article XIIIB, 6[a][2]). AB 1974 also provides that if the Commission on State Mandates determines there to be a reimbursable mandate for other portions of the bill, local agencies must be reimbursed pursuant to an existing statutory process. But county recorders charge fees for their services, and the state doesn’t have to reimburse local governments if they can charge fees to support the increased responsibility. The Committee may wish to consider amending AB 1974 to disclaim the state’s responsibility for reimbursing local governments because of their ability to charge fees for recorded documents.

Assembly Actions

Assembly Local Government Committee: 9-0

Assembly Appropriations Committee: 19-0

Assembly Floor: 79-0

Support and Opposition

(6/9/16)

Support: County Recorders Association of California (sponsor).

Opposition: Unknown.

-- END --

Date of Hearing: April 27, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1974

Author:(Gallagher) – As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2016

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY: This bill creates a standardized statewide procedure to re-record documents in county recorder offices. Specifically, this bill requires a document presented to a county recorder for re-recording to be executed and acknowledged, or verified as a new document, and to contain a notation on its face specifying the reason for the re-recording.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Negligible costs to county recorders. The County Recorders Association of California estimates about nine million documents are recorded statewide each year and approximately 3,000 to 4,000 of those are re-recorded documents (less than 0.04%). Although potentially a reimbursable state mandate, it is unlikely the costs would reach the level required to trigger a claim.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, "Under current law, there is no codified way to re-record documents in county recorder offices. This bill would set a standard procedure for re-recording documents. This bill will ensure records remain accurate when being re-recorded and will help in keeping local government efficient."
2. Background. County recorders are responsible generally for examining and recording all documents that deal with establishing ownership of land in counties. This includes the recording of title documents, notes, and home loan payoffs by homeowners, title companies, mortgage companies and government agencies involved in real estate transactions.

Documents such as deeds, loan documents, easements, power of attorney, liens, and other documents which affect title to or possession of real property need to be rerecorded when there is an error in a previously recorded document, or there needs to be a change in name or other details. There is no formal procedure to rerecord documents in statute. According to the County Recorders Association of California, sponsor of this measure, county recorders each have their own procedure, which creates uncertainty over the accuracy and correct procedure for re-recording.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 13, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Susan Talamantes Eggman, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1974 (

Author:Gallagher) – As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2016

SUBJECT: County recorder: recordation of documents.

SUMMARY: Requires a document presented to a county recorder for re-recording to be executed and acknowledged or verified as a new document, and to contain a notation on its face specifying the reason for the re-recording. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires each recorded instrument, paper, or notice that is re-recorded to be executed and acknowledged or verified as a new document, in addition to any previous acknowledgment or verification, unless otherwise exempted under current law, as specified, or if being presented solely to correct a recording sequence. The instrument, paper, or notice shall contain a notation on its face specifying the reason for the re-recording.
2. Requires, if a specified real estate document recorded in the official records of a county is
   re-recorded, that document to be executed or acknowledged or verified as a new document, in addition to any previous acknowledgment or verification, unless otherwise exempted under current law, as specified, or if being presented solely to correct a recording sequence. The document shall contain a notation on its face specifying the reason for the re-recording.
3. Provides that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires the county recorder, upon payment of proper fees and taxes, to record any instrument, paper, or notice that is authorized or required to be recorded, provided that the instrument, paper, or notice meets certain standards.
2. Requires specified real estate documents authorized by law to be recorded in the official records of a county to contain specified information.

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS:

1. Bill Summary. This bill requires a document that is presented to a county recorder for re-recording to be executed and acknowledged or verified as a new document, and to contain a notation on its face specifying the reason for the re-recording. This requirement does not apply if the document is exempt from certain recording requirements under current law, or if it is being presented solely to correct a recording sequence. This bill is sponsored by the County Recorders Association of California.
2. Author's Statement. According to the author, "Under current law, there is no codified way to re-record documents in county recorder offices. This bill would set a standard procedure for re-recording documents. This bill will ensure records remain accurate when being re-recorded and will help in keeping local government efficient."
3. Background. County recorders are responsible generally for examining and recording all documents that deal with establishing ownership of land in counties. This includes the recording of title documents, notes, and home loan payoffs by homeowners, title companies, mortgage companies and government agencies involved in real estate transactions.

Documents such as deeds, loan documents, easements, power of attorney, liens, and other documents which affect title to or possession of real property need to be rerecorded when there is an error in a previously recorded document or there needs to be a change in name or other details. There is no formal procedure to rerecord documents in statute. According to the County Recorders Association of California, sponsor of this measure, county recorders each have their own procedure, which creates uncertainty over the accuracy and correct procedure for re-recording.

1. State Mandate. This bill is keyed a state mandate, which means the state could be required to reimburse local agencies and school districts for implementing the bill's provisions if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state.
2. Arguments in Support. The County Recorders Association of California, sponsor of this measure, writes, "AB 1974 would create a formal procedure for re-recording documents. This will end consumer confusion when fixing errors in previously recorded documents."
3. Arguments in Opposition. None on file.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

County Recorders Association of California [SPONSOR]

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958