Date of Hearing: August 12, 2020

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1305

Author:(Roth) – As Amended Ver:May 13, 2020

PROPOSED CONSENT

SENATE VOTE: 39-0

SUBJECT: Revocable transfer on death deeds: SUNSET EXTENSION

KEY ISSUE: IN LIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE focus on other priorities this year due to the COVID-19 PANDEMIC, should the sunset on the REVOCABLE transfer on death deed (RTDD), ESTABLISHED five years ago, be extended for an additional year to allow the legislature SUFFICIENT time to review the required california law review commission report before deciding if the RTDD SHOULD BE MADE PERMANENT?

SYNOPSIS

For ten years, a number of legislators tried to create a simplified process to transfer real property outside of probate and without the use of a trust. (AB 250 (DeVore, 2007), AB 724 (DeVore, 2009-10), AB 699 (Wagner, 2011).) All of those efforts were unsuccessful until 2015's AB 139 (Gatto, Chap. 293), which finally established a five-year pilot program that allows owners of real property, until January 1, 2021, to transfer their property upon death, outside the normal probate procedure, through a written instrument known as a "revocable transfer on death deed” (RTDD). Given concerns about misuse of the RTDD, the Legislature directed the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) to study the RTDD pilot program and to report back to the Legislature by January 1, 2020 on how the program was operating.

The CLRC issued its report on the RTDD in November 2019, recommending that a number of changes be made to the RTDD process, but that overall the RTDD should be extended for another 10 years and that the CLRC do a further study prior to that 10-year sunset. (CLRC, Revocable Transfer on Death Deed: Follow-Up Study (Nov. 2019).) However, given the COVID-19 pandemic, the Legislature’s focus has been on the health emergency and its very difficult economic consequences. It has not been on other less urgent matters, including the future of the RTDD and the CLRC report. To ensure that the RTDD can continue until the Legislature can fully review the CLRC report and recommendations, this bill seeks to extend the January 1, 2021 sunset for one additional year, until January 1, 2022. The bill has no support or opposition.

SUMMARY: Extends the sunset date for revocable transfer on death deeds (RTDDs) from January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Allows an interest in certain residential real property to be transferred on death by recording an RTDD signed and acknowledged by the record owner of the property, with the capacity to contract, and designating a beneficiary or beneficiaries. The deed transfers ownership of that property interest upon the death of the owner. The pilot program is effective for any RTDD made by a transferor who dies on or after January 1, 2016, regardless of when the RTDD was executed or recorded. No RTDD may be executed on or after January 1, 2021, but any RTDD properly executed before that date remains valid and may be revoked after that date. (Probate Code Section 5600 et seq. Unless stated otherwise, all further statutory references are to that code.)
2. Provides that an RTDD does not affect any ownership rights during the transferor's lifetime, nor does it convey any rights to the beneficiary or the beneficiary's creditors during the transferor's lifetime. Provides that an RTDD is not effective until the transferor's death. (Section 5650.)
3. Provides a statutory form RTDD and requires that an RTDD must be in a substantially similar form. The statutory deed includes information to the transferor, including explaining how the RTDD works, how it is effectuated, and some of its consequences through the form's "Common Questions About the Use of This Form." Provides that the "Common Questions" portion of the statutory form is not required to be recorded with the RTDD and that failure to record that portion of the RTDD has no impact on the effectiveness of the RTDD. (Sections 5626, 5642.)  
4. Provides that an RTDD operates on the transferor’s death and remains revocable until the transferor’s death. (Section 5614.)
5. Provides that property subject to an RTDD is still part of the transferor's estate for purposes of Medi-Cal eligibility and will be subject to Medi-Cal reimbursement claims. Property subject to an RTDD is subject to claims from the transferor's secured and unsecured creditors. Allows the beneficiary to avoid unsecured claims by returning the property to the transferor's estate. (Sections 5670-76.)
6. Permits contest of the RTDD for, among other things, lack of capacity to transfer, transfer to a disqualified person, fraud, duress, and undue influence. (Sections 5690-96.)
7. Requires the CLRC to study the effects of the RTDD and make recommendations to the Legislature by January 1, 2020. (AB 139 (Gatto), Chap. 293, Stats. 2015, Section 21.) Requires the CLRC, as part of its study, to address whether it is feasible and appropriate to expand the RTDD to include 1) transfers of stock cooperatives or other common interest developments and 2) transfers to a trust or other legal entity. (AB 1779 (Gatto), Chap. 179, Stats. 2016, Section 1.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: For nearly a decade, a number of legislators tried to create a simplified process to transfer real property outside of probate and without use of a trust. (AB 250 (DeVore, 2007), AB 724 (DeVore, 2009-10), AB 699 (Wagner, 2011).) All of those efforts were unsuccessful until 2015's AB 139 (Gatto), Chap. 293, Stats. 2015, which finally established a five-year pilot program allowing owners of real property, until January 1, 2021, to transfer their property upon death, outside the normal probate procedure, through a written instrument known as a "revocable transfer on death deed.” Because of significant concerns about the effect of the RTDD and its likelihood of creating confusion, impact on Medi-Cal reimbursement and, most importantly, creation of a new opportunity for fraud and elder abuse, the bill was limited to transfers of only certain property, and the beneficiaries and how they take the property was similarly limited to keep the program as uncomplicated as possible to truly help those who are likely house-rich, but otherwise have no need for broader estate planning. In addition, that legislation limited the impact to just a five-year pilot, terminating January 1, 2021, with directions for the California Law Revision Commission to study the impact of the RTDD and report its findings and recommendations back to the Legislature by January 1, 2020.

The CLRC issued its report on the RTDD in November 2019, recommending that a number of changes be made the RTDD process, but that overall the RTDD should be extended for another 10 years and that the CLRC do a further study prior to that 10-year sunset. (CLRC, Revocable Transfer on Death Deed: Follow-Up Study (Nov. 2019).) However, given the COVID-19 pandemic, the Legislature’s focus has been on the health emergency and its very difficult economic consequences. It has not been on other less urgent matters, including the future of the RTDD and the CLRC report. To ensure that the RTDD can continue until the Legislature can fully review the CLRC report and recommendations, this bill seeks to extend the January 1, 2021 sunset for one additional year, until January 1, 2022.

In support of the bill, the author writes:

SB 1305 ensures that the Revocable Transfer on Death Deed (RTODD) process is not repealed before an adequate exploration of the California Law Revision Commission‘s recommendations can be discussed in the legislature—a conversation which must be postponed due to the impact of COVID-19. This bill will allow RTODDs, a useful and accessible tool for many Californians, to continue for an additional year and give the legislature more time to discuss how to best improve them.

Initial California Law Revision Commission Study: As directed by the Legislature, the CLRC conducted an initial study to determine whether an RTDD should be statutorily created in California. (CLRC, Recommendation: Revocable Transfer On Death (TOD) Deed (Oct. 2006).) At the time of that initial study, nine other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, and Wisconsin, statutorily recognized RTDDs. The CLRC's investigation revealed minor differences between the states' RTDDs and found that practitioners generally liked having the option of the RTDD. However, most of the statutes were too new to provide evidence of their effectiveness or of their susceptibility to misuse or abuse. In recommending creation of an RTDD in California, the CLRC balanced the generally positive, although quite limited, experience of other states and the need for a simple, low-cost method of conveying real property with the very real concerns that an RTDD could be abused and could help facilitate fraud on the transferor or his or her intended beneficiaries and, because it is so simple to use, it could be used inappropriately, without advice of counsel. In order to address some of these well-founded concerns, the CLRC recommended that California undertake a comprehensive review of all non-probate transfers and their consequences. However, in the interim, the CLRC recommended that California establish a carefully crafted RTDD.

Legislation allowed for use of RTDDs and created a statutory form with instructions for easy use without an attorney. After a decade of attempts, 2015's AB 139 established a five-year pilot program allowing owners of certain real property, until January 1, 2021, to transfer their property upon death, outside the normal probate procedure, through a written RTDD. That bill also created a statutory RTDD form to help ensure that property owners who do not seek legal counsel may be able to successfully transfer property through use of an RTDD. The statutory form also makes implementation of the RTDD easier for title companies. An RTDD only operates on the transferor’s death and remains fully revocable until the transferor’s death. (Section 5614.) In addition, the statutory deed informs transferors of their rights and the rights of their beneficiaries, and explains some of the pitfalls of the RTDD through its "Common Questions About the Use of This Form" section. (Section 5642.) The actual transfer deed appears on the first page of the form and the "Common Questions" section is required to be on the "subsequent" pages of the form.

When the RTDD was initially approved in 2015, there was concern that the RTDD might have the unintended consequence of steering persons away from legal assistance that they may need, and therefore that bill was appropriately limited and a CLRC study required. It is unclear what role lawyers will play in the execution and recording of these RTDDs. On the one hand, an RTDD might allow real property owners to avoid lawyers altogether through the simple recording of a beneficiary deed. On the other hand, the primary criticism of the “trust mills” is that they minimize the role of lawyers, through the use of prefabricated trusts, when the input of a lawyer’s expertise is often necessary. The State Bar's Conference of Delegates passed a resolution in response to the original RTDD bill, expressing concern that, in creating yet another “probate avoidance” device, the bill may have the unintended consequence of steering people away from needed legal assistance that can avoid unforeseen problems in estate planning. A simplified RTDD can also make it easier to commit financial abuse. Seniors could sign without realizing what they were signing or its consequences.

In recognition of the risks associated with an RTDD, AB 139 directed the CLRC to study the effect of the RTDD in California and report back to the Legislature by January 1, 2020. The report was required to address, among other things: (1) whether the revocable transfer on death deed is working effectively; (2) whether the revocable transfer on death deed is subject to misuse or misunderstanding; (3) what changes should be made to the revocable transfer on death deed or the law associated with the deed to improve its effectiveness and to avoid misuse or misunderstanding; and (4) whether the revocable transfer on death deed has been used to perpetuate financial abuse on property owners and, if so, how the law associated with the deed should be changed to minimize this abuse.

AB 139 also contained a January 1, 2021 sunset. RTDDs executed before that time would remain valid, but RTDDs executed after that date will not be valid. This sunset, together with the study by CLRC, helps minimize risks of abuse or misuse associated with the RTDD.

Legislation since then. Since the establishment of the RTDD in 2015, the Legislature has taken two additional steps to improve the functioning of the RTDD. First, in 2016, the Legislature expanded the required CLRC study to include whether it is feasible and appropriate to expand the RTDD to include 1) transfers of stock cooperatives or other common interest developments and 2) transfers to a trust or other legal entity. (AB 1779 (Gatto), Chap. 179, Stats. 2016.)

Second, as part of its study, the CLRC uncovered an ambiguity with the statutory form used for an RTDD that raised questions as to the validity of what a transferor may believe is a properly executed and recorded RTDD. The RTDD form includes the actual form that must be completed on the first page and then, on additional page(s), a series of questions and answers explaining how the RTDD works and how to execute it, as well as some issues to be considered when deciding whether to use the RTDD to transfer property. Apparently, some RTDDs had been recorded with the additional page(s) questions and answers included, but other RTDDs had been recorded without those “Common Questions.” The CLRC recommended that the law be clarified to ensure that RTDDs recorded without the additional pages are still valid. AB 1739 (Chau), Chap. 65, Stats. 2018 did just that by providing that the "Common Questions" portion of the statutory form is not required to be recorded with the RTDD and that failure to record that portion of the RTDD does not impact the effectiveness of the RTDD.

CLRC final study and recommendations completed. As required, CLRC completed its study and released its recommendations in November 2019. CLRC found that, with minor exceptions, there have been no problems with the RTDD statute. CLRC found that the RTDD does not appear to be subject to misuse or misunderstanding, as it is more straightforward and limited than other property transfer instruments, such as grant deeds. However, even though CLRC “did not find evidence of unresolved problems with the RTODD statute, it is possible that such problems exist but have not yet been discovered.” (CLRC, Revocable Transfer on Death Deed: Follow-Up Study (Nov. 2019) pp. 141.) Therefore, CLRC recommends that the RTDD be continued for another 10 years, with CLRC directed to conduct a second follow-up study before the end of that period.

CLRC did make a number of recommendations on how the RTDD statute can be improved. The recommendations include:

• Require an RTDD to be witnessed under rules similar to those governing wills. Specifically, require that:
  • The deed be signed by two witnesses who were both present when the RTDD was signed or acknowledged by the transferor;
  • If a beneficiary of an RTDD also signs as a witness, the RTDD should be presumed to be the product of fraud or undue influence; and
  • Witnesses be eligible to provide evidence in an action to contest the validity of an RTDD.
• Require that an RTDD beneficiary give notice to the transferor’s heirs when the transferor dies.
• Clarify that a beneficiary’s personal liability for a deceased transferor’s unsecured debts includes liability for the transferor’s funeral expenses, expenses of last illness, and wage claims.
• Replace a provision which authorizes the return of transferred property to a deceased transferor’s estate for use in paying unsecured debts with a provision that instead makes the beneficiary personally liable to the estate for a calculated share of those debts, based on the existing rules of abatement.
• Extend the time to record and thereby preserve the effect of third-party interests in property transferred by an RTDD.
• Clarify that an error or ambiguity in an RTDD does not invalidate the RTDD, if a court can determine the transferor’s intent by applying the general law on judicial construction of deeds.
• Expressly allow a court to apply cy pres principles to reform a charitable RTDD that would otherwise fail because the named beneficiary disclaims the gift or does not exist at the time the RTDD operates.
• Clarify that an enforceable restriction on the use of property transferred by RTDD does not impair the transfer of title; the beneficiary takes title subject to the restriction.
• Clarify that the beneficiary of a revoked RTDD has standing to contest the validity of the revocation, but only after the transferor’s death.
• Add guidance to the “Common Questions” document to address the effect of an RTDD on a mobilehome.
• Make a variety of technical and minor substantive changes to improve the clarity and operation of the RTDD law. (CLRC, Revocable Transfer on Death Deed, supra, at 142-143.)

This bill originally sought to implement CLRC’s recommended changes to the RTDD, but now seeks only to extend the program for an additional year. The introduced version of this bill incorporated the CLRC’s recommended changes. However, given the COVID-19 pandemic, the Legislature’s focus has been on the health emergency and its very difficult economic consequences. It has not been on other less urgent matters, including the CLRC recommendations and the future of the RTDD. To ensure that the RTDD can continue until the Legislature has fully considered the CLRC report and recommendations, this bill extends the January 1, 2021 sunset for one additional year.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

 CONSENT  

Bill No: SB 1305

Author: Roth (D)

Amended: 5/13/20

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 8-0, 5/22/20

AYES: Jackson, Durazo, Lena Gonzalez, Jones, Monning, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski

NO VOTE RECORDED: Borgeas

SUBJECT: Revocable transfer on death deeds

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill extends the sunset date for the statutory scheme governing revocable transfer on death deeds (RTODD) from January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes, until January 1, 2021, the use of an RTODD to transfer real property with four or fewer residential dwelling units, a condominium unit, or a single tract of agricultural real estate consisting of 40 acres or less with a single-family residence. (Prob. Code §§ 5600(c) & 5610.)^[1]
2. Defines an RTODD as an instrument that does all of the following:
   1. makes a donative transfer of real property to a named beneficiary;
   2. operates on the transferor’s death; and
   3. remains revocable until the transferor’s death. (§ 5614(a).)
3. Provides that an owner who has the capacity to contract may make an RTODD, which must identify the beneficiary by name, be signed by the transferor, and duly notarized. (§§ 5620, 5622 & 5624.)
4. Sets forth requirements for execution, revocation, implementation, and challenging the validity of RTODD. (§§ 5620, 5630, 5650, 5690.)

This bill extends the sunset date for RTODDs from January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022.

Background

An RTODD is a deed of real property that designates a beneficiary to receive the property when the transferor dies. An RTODD enables a homeowner to deed the property directly to a desired beneficiary without the expense of a trust or a probate proceeding.

Following the California Law Revision Commission’s recommendation to adopt legislation providing for RTODDs and a few failed attempts at legislation, the Legislature passed AB 139 (Gatto, Chapter 293, Statutes of 2015) as a five-year pilot program, set to expire January 1, 2021, with a requirement that the Commission study the effect of RTODDs and make recommendations for the reform of the law based on its findings. The Commission has completed its study and issued tentative recommendations.

However, because legislative efforts have been concentrated on addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, there has not been a sufficient opportunity to fully consider these recommendations. This bill extends the sunset date for RTODDs from January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022, so that the Legislature may vet these issues next session.

Comments

The author writes:

SB 1305 ensures that the [RTODD] process is not repealed before an adequate exploration of the California Law Revision Commission’s recommendations can be discussed in the legislature—a conversation which must be postponed due to the impact of COVID-19. This bill will allow RTODDs, a useful and accessible tool for many Californians, to continue for an additional year and give the legislature more time to discuss how to best improve them.

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

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/22/20)

None received

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/22/20)

None received

Prepared by: Josh Tosney / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

5/26/20 10:16:57

**** END ****

1. All further statutory references are to the Probate Code. ↑

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2019-2020 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 1305 (Author:Roth)

Version: May 13, 2020

Hearing Date: May 22, 2020

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: JT

SUBJECT

Revocable transfer on death deeds

DIGEST

This bill would extend the sunset date for revocable transfer on death deeds (RTODD) from January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An RTODD is a deed of real property that designates a beneficiary to receive the property when the transferor dies. An RTODD enables a homeowner to deed the property directly to a desired beneficiary without the expense of a trust or a probate proceeding.

Following the California Law Revision Commission’s (Commission) recommendation to adopt legislation providing for RTODDs and a few failed attempts at legislation, the Legislature passed AB 139 (Gatto, Ch. 293, Stats. 2015) as a five-year pilot program, set to expire January 1, 2021, with a requirement that the Commission study the effect of RTODDs and make recommendations for the reform of the law based on its findings. The Commission has completed its study and issued tentative recommendations.

However, because legislative efforts have been concentrated on addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, there has not been a sufficient opportunity to fully consider these recommendations. This bill would extend the sunset date for RTODDs from January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022, so that the Legislature may vet these issues next session. The bill has no support or opposition.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Authorizes, until January 1, 2021, the use of an RTODD to transfer real property with four or fewer residential dwelling units, a condominium unit, or a single tract of agricultural real estate consisting of 40 acres or less with a single-family residence. (Prob. Code §§ 5600(c) & 5610.)^[1]
2. Defines an RTODD as an instrument that does all of the following:
   1. makes a donative transfer of real property to a named beneficiary;
   2. operates on the transferor’s death; and
   3. remains revocable until the transferor’s death. (§ 5614(a).)
3. Provides that an owner who has the capacity to contract may make an RTODD, which must identify the beneficiary by name, be signed by the transferor, and duly notarized. (§§ 5620, 5622 & 5624.)
4. Sets forth requirements for execution, revocation, implementation, and challenging the validity of RTODD. (§§ 5620, 5630, 5650, 5690.)

This bill extends the sunset date for RTODDs from January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022.

COMMENTS

1. Background

In 2006, the Commission issued a study that recommended the adoption of legislation enabling the use of RTODDs in California.^[2] At the time, nine other states statutorily recognized these instruments for conveying real property without using a trust or going through a probate proceeding. The Commission found that, while these instruments were relatively novel and data on their effectiveness was scant, practitioners generally responded positively to these instruments. The Commission concluded that the benefits of a low-cost, efficient method of conveying real property outweighed concerns about the potential for fraud and abuse.

The Commission concluded as follows:

The nonprobate revolution has largely bypassed real property. Nearly all other significant assets, including life insurance, securities, bank accounts, and pension plans, pass commonly by beneficiary designation outside the probate system. Real property is the last major holdout, although substantial amounts of real property pass by right of survivorship under joint tenancy or community property or under a trust. It has been observed that ownership of real property is the factor most likely to determine whether a death will lead to a probate proceeding.

California law does not adequately deal with the many types of nonprobate transfer and their consequences. Comprehensive treatment of the area is necessary, much as Missouri has done with its nonprobate transfer law and as the Uniform Probate Code has done with creditor rights issues. But the need for comprehensive treatment of nonprobate transfer law should not be cause for delay in considering the concept of the revocable TOD deed on its merits.

Having surveyed existing transfer devices and reviewed the experience in other jurisdictions, and having considered the legal incidents of the revocable TOD deed, the Law Revision Commission recommends adoption of the device in California […].^[3]

2. The Commission’s study

AB 139 (Gatto, Stats. 2015, Ch. 293), which authorized the use of RTODDs, directed the Commission to conduct a study based on a series of questions. (Id. at § 21.) The Commission recently issued the study,^[4] which drew the following conclusions:

• With minor exceptions, there are no problems with the RTODD statute and it should be continued for another 10 years, with the Commission directed to conduct a second follow-up study before the end of that period.
• The RTODD does not appear to be subject to misuse or misunderstanding, as it is more straightforward and limited than other property transfer instruments, such as grant deeds.
• To improve the RTODD statute, the Legislature should make the following changes:
  1. Require an RTODD to be witnessed under rules similar to those governing wills.^[5] Specifically, require that:
     • The deed be signed by two witnesses who were both present when the RTODD was signed or acknowledged by the transferor.
     • If a beneficiary of an RTODD also signs as a witness, the RTODD would be presumed to be the product of fraud or undue influence.
     • Witnesses be eligible to provide evidence in an action to contest the validity of the RTODD.
  2. Require that an RTODD beneficiary give notice to the transferor’s heirs when the transferor dies.
  3. Clarify that a beneficiary’s personal liability for a deceased transferor’s unsecured debts includes liability for the transferor’s funeral expenses, expenses of last illness, and wage claims.
  4. Replace existing section 5676, which authorizes the return of transferred property to a deceased transferor’s estate for use in paying unsecured debts with a provision that instead makes the beneficiary personally liable to the estate for a calculated share of those debts, based on the existing rules of abatement.
  5. Extend the time to record and thereby preserve the effect of third party interests in property transferred by an RTODD.
  6. Clarify that an error or ambiguity in an RTODD does not invalidate the RTODD, if a court can determine the transferor’s intent by applying the general law on judicial construction of deeds.
  7. Expressly allow a court to apply cy pres principles to reform a charitable RTODD that would otherwise fail because the named beneficiary disclaims the gift or does not exist at the time the RTODD operates.
  8. Clarify that an enforceable restriction on the use of property transferred by RTODD does not impair the transfer of title; the beneficiary takes title subject to the restriction.
  9. Make clear that the beneficiary of a revoked RTODD has standing to contest the validity of the revocation, but only after the transferor’s death.
  10. Add guidance to the “Common Questions” document to address the effect of an RTODD on a mobilehome.
  11. Make a variety of technical and minor substantive changes to improve the clarity and operation of the law.

The introduced version of this bill incorporated these recommended changes. However, legislative efforts have been redirected towards addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. By extending the sunset of the RTODD by one year, this bill would enable Legislature to contemplate these recommendations next session. The author writes:

SB 1305 ensures that the [RTODD] process is not repealed before an adequate exploration of the California Law Revision Commission ‘s recommendations can be discussed in the legislature—a conversation which must be postponed due to the impact of COVID-19. This bill will allow RTODDs, a useful and accessible tool for many Californians, to continue for an additional year and give the legislature more time to discuss how to best improve them.

SUPPORT

None

OPPOSITION

None

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known

Prior Legislation:

AB 1739 (Chau, Ch. 65, Stats. 2018) clarified that the “Common Questions” language in the statutory form for an RTODD need not be recorded along with the deed portion of the form.

AB 3004 (Kiley, 2018) would have made various changes to the statutory provisions governing RTODD. It was held in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

AB 139 (Gatto, Ch. 293, Stats. 2015) established a five-year pilot program for RTODD.

**************

1. All further statutory references are to the Probate Code. ↑

2. CLRC, Recommendation: Revocable Transfer On Death (TOD) Deed (Oct. 2006) 36 Cal. L. Rev. Comm’n Repts, available at http://clrc.ca.gov/pub/Printed-Reports/Pub241-L3032.1.pdf (as of May 17, 2020). ↑

3. Id. at pp. 211-212. ↑

4. Revocable Transfer on Death Deed: Follow-Up Study (Nov. 2019) 46 Cal. L. Rev. Comm’n Repts. 135, available at http://clrc.ca.gov/pub/Printed-Reports/Pub241-L3032.1.pdf (as of May 17, 2019). ↑

5. See §§ 6110, 6112; Evid. Code § 870. ↑