BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 464
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 16, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Richard Pan, Chair
AB 464 (Daly) - As Introduced: February 19, 2013
SUBJECT : Vital Records.
SUMMARY : Updates existing law to allow for requests of birth,
death and marriage certificates using digitized images, requires
the use of a specified form for the acknowledgement of an
instrument, and allows an informational copy of a death
certificate to be used to prove the death of a person for real
property transfer purposes. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the use of a specific form instead of "substantially
in the form prescribed" when an officer taking the
acknowledgement of an instrument endorses or attaches a
certificate.
2)Makes conforming changes, precluding the use of other
substantially similar forms.
3)Allows for digitized images of a request for a certified copy
of a birth, death, or marriage record and deletes references
to a military service record.
4)Defines digitized image as an image of an original paper
request for a certified copy of a birth, death, or marriage
record.
5)Allows an informational copy of a death certificate issued by
the State Registrar, local registrar, or county recorder to be
used to prove the death of a person for real property
transfers in the county which the property is located.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes requirements for recording of real property by
county recorders in the county the real property affected
thereby is situated.
2)Requires the State Registrar of Vital Statistics (the Director
of the Department of Public Health), a local registrar, or a
county recorder, upon payment of a required fee, to supply
AB 464
Page 2
applicants a certified copy of birth, fetal death, death,
marriage, or divorce records.
3)Allows the State Registrar, local registrar, or county
recorder to furnish a certified copy of birth, death, or
marriage records to applicants upon request if:
a) The request is written or faxed and accompanied by a
notarized statement, sworn under penalty of perjury, that
the requester is an "authorized person;" or,
b) The request is made in person, and the official takes a
statement, sworn under penalty of perjury, that the
requester is signing his or her own legal name and is an
"authorized person."
4)Requires a notary, prior to notarizing a document, to obtain
satisfactory evidence of the identity of the person signing
the document. This evidence can include any of the following:
a) The oath of a witness who is personally known to the
notary, as specified;
b) The oath of two witnesses who prove their identities
with a current passport or identification card, as
specified; or,
c) Presentation of a current passport or identification
card, as specified.
5)Defines "authorized person," for purposes of obtaining
confidential marriage records, as a party to the confidential
marriage.
6)Defines "authorized person," for purposes of obtaining
certified copies of birth, death, or nonconfidential marriage
records, as any of the following:
a) The person who is the subject of the record or the
parent or legal guardian of that person;
b) A party who is entitled to receive the record as a
result of a court order, or certain parties associated with
an adoption;
AB 464
Page 3
c) Law enforcement or governmental agency personnel
conducting official business;
d) A child, grandchild, sibling, spouse, domestic partner,
or grandparent of the person who is the subject of the
record;
e) An attorney or other person empowered to act on behalf
of the person who is the subject of the record or his or
her estate; or,
f) An agent or employee of a funeral establishment who
orders death certificates when acting on behalf of
specified individuals.
7)Requires all applicants who are not "authorized persons" to be
provided with an informational certified copy that states,
"INFORMATIONAL, NOT A VALID DOCUMENT TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY."
8)Requires applicants for birth or death records to pay a fee.
In addition to this fee, requires applicants for birth, death,
or marriage records to pay an additional $1 fee, which
provides funding for: a) the development of safety and
security measures to protect against fraudulent use of vital
records; and, b) the costs of additional security features
that local registrars and county recorders are required to
implement.
9)Permits a certified copy of any discharge, certificate of
service, certificate of satisfactory service, notice of
separation, or report of separation of any member of the Armed
Forces of the United States to be made available only to: a)
the person who is the subject of the record upon presentation
of the proper photo identification; b) a family member or
legal representative of the person who is the subject of the
record upon presentation of proper photo identification and
certification of their relationship to the subject of the
record; c) a county office that provides veteran's benefits
services upon written request of the that office; and, d) a
United States official upon written request of that official.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill has not yet been analyzed by a fiscal
committee.
AB 464
Page 4
COMMENTS :
1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL . According to the author, this bill
updates the laws as they related to vital statistics in three
ways:
First, this bill would clarify that there are single form
certificates prescribed by statute for acknowledgments taken
in the state of California. There is a conflict in the law
between California Civil Code Sections 1188 &1189. Prior to
AB 361 (Runner), Chapter 295, Statues of 2005, becoming
effective January 1, 2006, the law required only that the
certificate of acknowledgement form comply "substantially"
with the applicable statutory form as prescribed in Civil Code
1189. Generally, if the statutory requirements were met, the
certificate was not invalid merely because the exact language
was not used in the certificate. However, AB 361 amended
Civil Code Section 1189 to prescribe that the specific
statutory form be utilized by removing the word
"substantially." When this change was made, it created a
conflict in two other sections of the Civil Code. This bill
would have no foreseeable negative impacts on an agency or the
public and would merely remedy the current conflicting
language in the law and make clear that certificates of
acknowledgment must be in the exact forms prescribed in
California statute.
Second, current law allows for in person, mail, and fax,
requests of vital records, such as birth or death records.
This bill will would add digitized scanned images to the
acceptable forms of request for vital records. Faxes are
becoming obsolete and many people have scanners to send over
their information. The law, as written, does not provide for
technological advances, such as scanning. This bill will
provide the public with an additional avenue to request copies
of vital records. It is a public service benefit that
Recorders can easily accommodate. This bill will be of help
to recorder offices because scanned images are often easier to
read than faxed images.
Third, in California, only individuals with a certain
relationship to the deceased are authorized to receive an
un-redacted, certified copy of a Death record. However,
AB 464
Page 5
anyone can obtain an "informational" redacted certified copy
of a Death record. To be clear, both types of records are
certified copies issued from a County Recorder's office. The
difference is that the informational copies of death
certificates have the signatures and social security numbers
redacted and a watermark that states "This is not a valid
document to establish identity." The proper way to transfer
title upon death of a Joint Tenant is to record an "Affidavit
of Death." A recording requirement for the affidavit document
is to attach a "Certified Copy of the Death Certificate."
Presently both informational and authorized copies are entitled
to be recorded - depending on the county. Currently some
counties accept certified informational copies attached to
Affidavits of Death for recording purposes and some do not.
The California statute is not clear, Health and Safety Code
103526 cites both as being 'certified copies' and the probate
code 210 states 'any person' may record an affidavit of
death?with a "certified copy" of a death certificate. Common
practice of counties is to record informational copies.
Twenty percent of counties are rejecting informational copies.
San Bernardino County rejected a document for recording that had
an informational certified copy attached and the Judge in that
case issued a minute order allowing the non-authorized person
to receive an un-redacted certified copy so that he could
record his document.
By introducing this bill, Recorders believe that it would
clarify the law and provide an easy and perfectly acceptable
legal avenue for a person to transfer title upon death. The
intent is an equal application of the law. Ventura County
cited a case where a citizen complained they had to spend $600
to obtain a court order to record an affidavit of death in a
neighboring county while Ventura County records informational
copies. The probate code states "any person" may record an
affidavit of death? and this right is greatly diminished by
forcing them to go to court to obtain permission to purchase
an authorized copy of a death certificate.
2)SUPPORT . The California Association of Clerks and Election
Officials support this bill because under current law, a
constituent may request vital records utilizing three methods:
in person, by mail, and through fax. Currently a digitized
scanned image is not an acceptable form of request for vital
records. The law, as written, does not provide for
AB 464
Page 6
technological advances in the request process, such as
scanning and emailing a digitized image. The County
Recorders' Association of California believes this bill will
increase Californians' access to vital records, clarify the
process of recording affidavits of deaths, and make important
statutory changes related to acknowledgements.
3)RELATED LEGISLATION . AB 383 (Wagner) makes non-substantive
changes to the codes by recommendation of the Legislative
Counsel's office in order to correct non-substantive errors
that exist in the original bill text.
4)PREVIOUS LEGISLATION .
a) AB 130 (Jeffries), Chapter 412, Statutes of 2009,
expands protections for certified birth or death records
and indices to also include marriage records.
b) SB 1398 (Margett and Hollingsworth) of 2008 would have
required any official who processes an in-person request
for a certified copy of a birth or death certificate to
obtain valid identificaton with an exception for an
applicant who has been the victim of identity theft. SB
1398 failed passage in the Senate Health Committee.
c) SB 471 (Margett) of 2007 would have required any
official who processes an in-person request for a certified
copy of a birth or death certificate to obtain valid
identification, including a driver's license,
identification card, passport, or other documentation
determined to be sufficient by the official, prior to
furnishing a certified copy. SB 471 failed passage in the
Senate Health Committee.
d) SB 904 (Battin) of 2007 would have required county
recorders, prior to providing a non-certified copy of
someone's military service record, to redact personal
information from that record and would have required the
recorder to collect a fee for providing a non-certified
copy. SB 904 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger: "While
this bill is intended to protect the personal information
of our valued military personnel, it does not completely
shield this information from public access. In addition,
AB 464
Page 7
implementation of this bill could result in a
state-mandated local program with unknown costs to the
State. Given recent budget negotiations and concerns for
fiscal restraint, I am returning this bill without my
signature."
e) AB 361, Chapter 295, Statutes of 2005, provides that it
is a misdemeanor for notaries public to willfully fail to
perform the required duties of a notary and requires the
court to revoke a notary's commission if the notary is
convicted of a felony or for willfully failing to perform
his/her duties. This bill also clarifies that the crime of
forgery includes falsifying an acknowledgement of a notary.
f) AB 1278 (Emmerson), Chapter 430, Statutes of 2005,
revises the management and collection of information
included on certificates of live birth and fetal death;
requires that the section for items relating to medical and
health data on a certificate of fetal death be kept
confidential; and, delays implementation of a requirement
for informational certified copies of birth or death
certificates to be issued from a specified statewide
database and contain a statement in perforated type stating
that the copy is informational and not a valid document to
establish identity.
g) AB 1179 (Parra), Chapter 6, Statutes of 2004, requires
mailed requests for certified copies of birth or death
records received by mail to include a notarized statement
stating that the requester is an authorized person. Allows
county recorders to accept notarized documents requesting
certified copies of birth, death, or military service
records by fax. Also requires applicants for certified
copies of veterans' military service records to present
proper photo identification.
h) AB 2229 (Benoit) of 2004 would have made a
representative of an accredited California medical school
an authorized person who may receive certified copies of
birth or death records. AB 2229 died without a hearing in
the Assembly Health Committee.
i) AB 1376 (Benoit) of 2003 would have made a licensed
private investigator an authorized person who may receive
AB 464
Page 8
certified copies of birth or death records and would have
extended access to the State Registrar's birth or death
indices to private investigators. AB 1376 died without a
hearing in the Assembly Health Committee.
j) SB 247 (Speier), Chapter 914, Statutes of 2002, creates
protections related to the release of, and access to, birth
and death records, including: required authorized persons
to submit a statement under penalty of perjury; set out the
list of "authorized persons" for access to certified
copies; established provisions that allow an informational
certified copy to be released to other persons; created
requirements for security features on certified copies;
and, established a Vital Records Protection Advisory
Committee to study and make recommendations related to
access to vital records, identity theft, and fraud.
aa) SB 592 (McPherson) of 2001 would have prohibited
certified copies of birth certificates to be sent to post
office boxes. Would have required local registrars and
county recorders to provide information for inclusion in
the State Registrar's database of persons who have
requested birth certificates. SB 592 was held in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
County Recorders' Association of California (sponsor)
California Association of Clerks and Election Officials
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Teri Boughton / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097