BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
AB 139 (Gatto)
Version: June 29, 2015
Hearing Date: July 7, 2015
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
TMW
SUBJECT
Nonprobate transfers: revocable transfer upon death deeds
DESCRIPTION
This bill would create a new nonprobate property transfer
instrument, the "Simple Revocable Transfer on Death (TOD) Deed,"
which would be effective upon death of the transferor.
Specifically, this bill would:
establish rules for the making and revocation of a revocable
TOD deed, and provide a mandatory statutory form deed and form
revocation;
outline the beneficiary's liability for debts of the
transferor and the procedure for restitution to the estate by
the beneficiary of the revocable TOD deed;
establish the procedure for contesting a revocable TOD deed
and for a creditor to collect payment for the transferor's
debts;
require the California Law Revision Commission to report back
to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2020, on specified
data concerning the use, misuse, or misunderstanding of the
revocable TOD deed and recommendations for change; and
make other conforming changes.
This bill would sunset on January 1, 2021.
(This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered in
Committee.)
BACKGROUND
AB 139 (Gatto)
Page 2 of ?
In 2005, AB 12 (DeVore, Chapter 422, Statutes of 2005) was
introduced as a bill to create the instrument that AB 139 now
calls "revocable transfer on death deed," but was subsequently
amended to instead direct the California Law Revision Commission
(CLRC) to study this type of deed and determine whether
California should create it as a new nonprobate transfer
instrument that becomes effective only upon the death of the
transferor. The study was recommended for the following
reasons: (1) there is a 1914 California case that already
allows for the use of beneficiary deeds (another name for the
revocable TOD deed) that has never been overturned (Tennant v.
John Tennant Memorial Home (1914) 167 Cal. 570); (2) various
parties, including the California Land Title Company, the
California Judges Association, and the Trusts and Estates
Section of the State Bar, expressed strong opposition to the
bill for lack of clarity and failure to address unintended
consequences; and (3) there existed the possibility of countless
litigation because of the potential impact of a beneficiary deed
on the transferor's property ownership and of fraudulent
transfers.
The CLRC was directed to address a non-exclusive list of issues
in its study, including, for example, whether and when a
beneficiary deed would be the most appropriate nonprobate
transfer mechanism to use, if a beneficiary deed should be
recorded or held by the grantor or grantee until the time of
death, and, if not recorded, whether a potential for fraud is
created and what effect the recordation of a beneficiary deed
would have on the transferor's property rights after
recordation. The CLRC issued its recommendation in October
2006, noting that while the deed has advantages and
disadvantages, "creation of a TOD deed would be beneficial in
California."
In 2009, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws finalized a Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death
Act, which provides a simple procedure for the transfer of real
property outside of probate. That Act has been enacted in eight
states, and 19 other states have enacted various acts for the
same purpose. This bill is not based on that Act but, instead,
maintains the CLRC recommended proposal with modifications from
each legislative attempt to enact it.
Accordingly, this bill would create a method and mandatory form
for the transfer of real property upon the death of the
AB 139 (Gatto)
Page 3 of ?
transferor. This bill is substantially similar to AB 250
(DeVore, 2007), which incorporated recommendations of the CLRC
and failed passage in this Committee on a vote of 1-3. This
bill is also substantially similar to AB 724 (DeVore, 2010),
which failed passage in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
This bill is also substantially similar to AB 699 (Wagner,
2011), which failed passage in this Committee on a vote of 1-4.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides various methods by which a person may
transfer his or her real property interests to another person
upon death, such as through a will (Prob. Code Sec. 6100 et
seq.), a trust (Prob. Code Sec. 15000 et seq.), a joint tenancy
with right of survivorship (Civ. Code Sec. 683), community
property with right of survivorship (Civ. Code Sec. 682.1), an
intervivos transfer with reserved life estate (Tennant v. John
Tennant Memorial Home (1914) Cal. 570.), and a nonprobate
transfer (Prob. Code Secs. 13000, 13500).
Existing law provides that, unless otherwise provided, when one
spouse dies intestate leaving property that passes to the other
spouse, or dies testate and by will leaves the property to the
surviving spouse, the property passes to the surviving spouse,
as specified, and no probate administration is necessary.
(Prob. Code Sec. 13500.)
Existing law provides that title to a decedent's property,
subject to probate administration and the rights of
beneficiaries, creditors, and other persons as provided by law,
passes on the decedent's death to the person to whom it is
devised in the decedent's last will or, in the absence of such a
devise, to the decedent's heirs as prescribed in the laws
governing intestate succession. (Prob. Code Secs. 7000, 7001.)
Existing law authorizes a successor of the decedent (a
beneficiary) to collect personal property of the decedent from
the holder of the property through an affidavit procedure, which
requires, among other things, the successor to declare under
penalty of perjury that no other person has a superior right to
the interest of the decedent in the described property, and, if
the decedent's estate includes real property, an inventory and
appraisal of the real property must be attached to the
affidavit. (Prob. Code Secs. 13100, 13101, 13103.) That
procedure can be utilized after 40 days have elapsed since the
AB 139 (Gatto)
Page 4 of ?
date of the decedent's death, the total gross fair market value
of the decedent's real and personal property is $150,000 or less
(a "small estate"), and there has been no probate
administration. (Prob. Code Sec. 13100.)
Existing law authorizes a person claiming to be a successor of
the decedent to petition the court for transfer of a particular
item of real property, if 40 days have elapsed since the death
of the decedent, without procuring letters of administration or
awaiting probate of the will, and requires the petitioner to
complete an affidavit declaring, among other things, that the
real property is valued at $50,000 or less and no other person
has a superior right to the interest of the decedent in the
described property. (Prob. Code Sec. 13151.) Existing law also
requires the petitioner to attach an inventory and appraisal of
all of the decedent's real property. (Id.)
Existing law authorizes a successor of the decedent to complete
an affidavit, not earlier than six months after the date of the
decedent's death, to be filed with the clerk of the court, for
transfer of one or more particular items of a decedent's real
property in an amount of $50,000 or less if the gross fair
market value of the decedent's real and personal property in
this state does not exceed $150,000, an inventory and appraisal
of the real property is attached to the affidavit, and the
successor declares, among other things, that the funeral
expenses, expenses of last illness, and all unsecured debts of
the decedent have been paid. (Prob. Code Sec. 13200.)
Existing law also authorizes the trustee of a trust, which is
considered a beneficiary of the deceased settlor, to utilize
these procedures to transfer an item of real or personal
property of the decedent into the trust. (Prob. Code Sec.
13051(b).)
Existing law makes the successor personally liable to unsecured
creditors for the debts of the decedent, any person having a
superior right to the property by testate or intestate
succession from the decedent, and liable to the estate. (Prob.
Code Secs. 13204, 13205, and 13206.)
Existing law provides that, when a husband or wife dies
intestate leaving property that passes to the surviving spouse,
or dies testate and by his or her will devises all or a part of
his or her property to the surviving spouse, the property passes
AB 139 (Gatto)
Page 5 of ?
to the survivor subject to creditors and claimants, and no
administration is necessary. (Prob. Code Sec. 13500.)
Existing law , after 40 days from the death of a spouse, provides
to the surviving spouse or the personal representative, guardian
of the estate, or conservator of the estate of the surviving
spouse, full power to sell, convey, lease, mortgage, or
otherwise deal with and dispose of the community or
quasi-community real property, and the right, title, and
interest of any grantee, purchaser, encumbrancer, or lessee
shall be free of rights of the estate of the deceased spouse or
of devisees or creditors of the deceased spouse to the same
extent as if the property had been owned as the separate
property of the surviving spouse. (Prob. Code Sec. 13540.)
Existing law makes the surviving spouse personally liable for
the debts of the decedent. (Prob. Code Sec. 13550.)
Existing law provides that a surviving registered domestic
partner, following the death of the other partner, shall have
the same rights, protections, and benefits, as are granted to
and imposed upon a widow or a widower. (Fam. Code Sec. 297.5.)
Existing law permits the nonprobate transfer of property on
death, including an insurance policy, contract of employment,
bond, mortgage, promissory note, certified or uncertified
security, account agreement, custodial agreement, deposit
agreement, compensation plan, pension plan, individual
retirement plan, employee benefit plan, trust, conveyance, deed
of gift, marital property agreement, or other written instrument
of a similar nature. (Prob. Code Sec. 5000.)
Existing case law provides for the nonprobate transfer of real
property insofar as persons may execute a revocable deed to a
beneficiary while reserving a life estate. (Tennant v. John
Tennant Memorial Home (1914) Cal. 570.)
Existing law provides that upon the death of one joint tenant,
real property held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship
vests immediately in the surviving joint tenant or tenants.
(Civ. Code Sec. 683.)
Existing law provides that, if a transferee under a will, trust,
deed, or other instrument fails to survive the transferor or is
treated as if the transferee predeceased the transferor, or
AB 139 (Gatto)
Page 6 of ?
fails to survive a future time, the transfer does not lapse but
instead passes to the issue of the deceased transferee, except
as otherwise provided. (Prob. Code Sec. 21110.)
This bill would establish a new nonprobate transfer instrument,
the revocable transfer on death (TOD) deed, for use as specified
to transfer real property upon a transferor's death.
Specifically, this bill would:
(1)define the instrument, the simple revocable TOD deed, which
would transfer real property to a named beneficiary upon the
death of the transferor outside of probate, and establish the
rules for the making and the revocation of the instrument;
(2)provide a mandatory statutory form of a revocable TOD deed
containing the required information, instructions, and answers
to a long list of "commonly asked questions" about the
instrument;
(3)establish rules regarding the effect of the execution and
recordation of a revocable TOD deed, and their interaction
with other types of instruments;
(4)establish rules for a revocable TOD deed beneficiary's
liability for the debts of a transferor, including rules for
when an action is filed based on the debts, rules for the
beneficiary's liability for restitution under specified
circumstances, who may bring an action to enforce the
beneficiary's liability, and payment of costs for a proceeding
to enforce the beneficiary's liability;
(5)establish rules regarding the effectuation of the property
transfer, and a beneficiary's standing vis á vis a distributee
under a final order of distribution if the property was
probated;
(6)establish rules for a contest involving the revocable TOD
deed;
(7)allow only a personal representative to enforce liability of
a beneficiary of a revocable TOD deed or any other beneficiary
of a decedent with a small estate, to the extent necessary to
protect heirs, devisees, and creditors of the
transferor-decedent, and, as to creditors, provide for
recovery of the reasonable cost of a proceeding under this
provision as an extraordinary service by the personal
representative or the attorney of the decedent's estate; and
(8)make other conforming changes.
This bill would direct the California Law Revision Commission to
study the effect of the revocable TOD deed as established by
this bill and to report to the Legislature on or before January
AB 139 (Gatto)
Page 7 of ?
1, 2020, with specific instructions to study:
(1)whether the revocable TOD deed is working effectively;
(2)whether the revocable TOD deed should be continued;
(3)whether the revocable TOD deed is subject to misuse or
misunderstanding;
(4)what changes should be made to the revocable TOD deed or the
law associated with the deed to improve its effectiveness and
to avoid misuse or misunderstanding; and
(5)whether the revocable TOD deed has been used to perpetuate
financial abuse on property owners and, if so, how the law
should be changed to minimize this abuse.
This bill would sunset on January 1, 2021, however, the sunset
would not affect the validity or effect of a revocable TOD deed
that is executed before January 1, 2021, and would not affect
the authority of the transferor to revoke a TOD deed.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
California law offers individuals several mechanisms to
transfer real property to a chosen beneficiary at death.
Those mechanisms include, but are not limited to, a will,
trust, joint tenancy, and community property. While some of
the available mechanisms must happen during the property
owner's lifetime, others happen upon death, and each vary in
the cost and ease of transfer, revocability options, ownership
rights, effect on Medi-Cal eligibility, and availability to
creditors.
The most common form of real property transfer upon death, a
will, must pass through probate, a lengthy legal process that
involves proving in court that a deceased person's will is
valid, inventorying and appraising property, and paying debts
and taxes. The process is often grueling, can take up to a
year, and often results in statutory probate fees in the
thousands of dollars. Similarly, establishment of a revocable
trust can cost upwards of $2,000. For seniors and individuals
whose estate consists primarily of the home, the money to
establish a trust is out of the question.
Although other estate planning options are available to
AB 139 (Gatto)
Page 8 of ?
property owners, the [revocable transfer on death deed
(revocable TOD deed)] is the most simple and inexpensive
transfer mechanism on the market today. Furthermore, it may
be the only tool available to unmarried homeowners who wish to
leave their property to a lifelong partner, family member,
friend or loved one upon death, but who do not want to
transfer present interest (such as joint tenancy) or cannot
afford to set up a trust. Some families attempt to pass real
property to a family member by adding the recipient's name to
the title as a joint tenant with rights of survivorship. The
property will pass to the recipient at the death of the joint
owner, but there are also significant consequences during the
owner's life, such as exposing the property to the joint
tenant's creditors, and gives the joint tenant the power to
approve or disapprove a sale.
2. Addressing concerns of elder and dependent adult financial
abuse
Existing law provides various protections against elder and
dependent adult financial abuse. Prior attempts to enact the
revocable TOD deed raised various concerns about the ability for
bad actors to utilize this deed to take advantage of an elder or
dependent adult. California's dramatically high home values
make its elders and dependent adults particularly attractive to
individuals looking to prey on this population. According to
the California Association of Realtors, "Housing Market Update,
Monthly Sales and Price Statistics June 2015," the average real
property value in California ranges from $170,000 in Glen County
(Central Valley) to $1.375 million in San Francisco.
Proponents state that the target population of the revocable TOD
deed is senior citizens who are looking for a simple and
inexpensive way to give away their one asset, their home.
Notably, the transfer on death instrument would be most
beneficial for small estates, particularly situations where
there is one owner and one beneficiary, or between committed
partners who are not married or do not have a civil union, or
those who do not need the tax benefits of a living trust.
(Attorneys Title Guarantee Fund, Transfer on Death Instrument:
Advantages and Disadvantages (Sept. 21, 2011)
[as of June 29, 2015].) For
example, a widow might create a TOD deed to transfer her sole
asset, a house, to her only child as the beneficiary. (Id.)
AB 139 (Gatto)
Page 9 of ?
This would ensure that the widow retains rights in her house
during her lifetime. (Id.) On her death, the house would
transfer to her child while avoiding the delay of probate. A
TOD deed can avoid the complexity and expenses of a living trust
and the disadvantages. (Id.)
Ohio enacted revocable TOD deed statutes in 2000, which were
subsequently repealed in 2009 in favor of a transfer on death
affidavit, and has multiple examples of elder financial abuse
concerns arising from TOD deeds. In Treadway v. Free
Pentecostal Pater Ave. Church of God, Inc. (2008)
2008-Ohio-1663, the grandchildren of the decedent challenged the
will and TOD deeds of their grandmother that made the preacher's
daughter of a local church the beneficiary of the grandmother's
assets and real property. In Treadway, the preacher's daughter
took over care of the grandmother during her decline from
cancer, and the grandchildren alleged they were restricted from
visiting their grandmother during her declining health. (Id.,
pp. 2-3.) During this time, the caretaker was appointed by the
grandmother on two different trips to attorneys' offices as the
grandmother's attorney-in-fact, estate executor, and beneficiary
of several TOD deeds. (Id, p. 2.) The court held that the
grandchildren, who would have, in a prior version of the
grandmother's will, inherited from the grandmother's estate if
their father predeceased their grandmother, lacked standing to
contest the will because their future interest had not vested
(their father was still alive), and the trial court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction since any failed gift to the
caretaker would have reverted to the estate, which fell under
the jurisdiction of the probate court. Otherwise, since the
grandchildren were not personal representatives (the caretaker
was the executor), they had no standing to challenge the TOD
deed transfers. (Id., pp. 11-12.)
In another Ohio case, Hamblin v. Daugherty (2007)
2007-Ohio-5893, the decedent's will provided for equal
distribution of the decedent's estate to his three daughters;
however, only one of the daughters received the decedent's
property, which was transferred automatically outside of probate
and included three parcels of the decedent's real property
transferred through a TOD deed prepared by an attorney employer
of the beneficiary daughter. The two daughters who received no
property challenged the transfers, including a claim that the
TOD deed transferring the three parcels was executed by the
decedent on a day in which he was in the hospital having
AB 139 (Gatto)
Page 10 of ?
surgery. (Id., p. 13.) The contesting daughters, after several
appeals, were ultimately successful in proving undue influence,
and the property was ordered to be included in the decedent's
estate. (Hamblin v. Daugherty (2008) 2008-Ohio-5306.)
As demonstrated by the Ohio cases, this bill may have the
potential to encourage and enable adult and elder financial
abuse. This bill would provide that the transferor is not
required to deliver a revocable TOD deed to the beneficiary, and
the beneficiary is not required to accept the deed from the
transferor, during the transferor's life. (Proposed Sec. 5624
(b) and (c).) Illinois, a state that has adopted a revocable
transfer on death instrument (not a deed), requires acceptance
by a beneficiary prior to transfer of the property, which is
missing from most other state statutes and the Uniform Real
Property Transfer on Death Act adopted by the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. This
safeguard was included to let the beneficiary decide whether he
or she wants to take title to the property, particularly if it
has environmental problems or building code violations. (C.
Brown, The Transfer on Death Instrument Comes to Illinois (Dec.
2011) Illinois State Bar Association [as of June 29,
2015].)
Illinois primarily relied on the Uniform Real Property Transfer
on Death Act adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners
on Uniform State Laws, but made additional revisions to the
uniform act, including limiting its application to residential
real estate transfers. According to the Illinois Bar
Association, "[t]he uniform act and other state statutes do not
limit the type of real estate that can be transferred, the
[Illinois State Bar Association] drafters believed the greatest
demand for this type of instrument was where the client's only
real estate is a principal or vacation residence. Although the
scope of the act may be expanded, the limitation to residential
real estate allows the title industry, recording officials, and
the practicing bar to become familiar with the act and its
application." (C. Brown, The Transfer on Death Instrument Comes
to Illinois (Dec. 2011) Illinois State Bar Association
[as of June 29, 2015].)
In order to incorporate additional protections discovered as
necessary in other states and to address elder and dependent
AB 139 (Gatto)
Page 11 of ?
adult financial abuse concerns, the author offers amendments in
Committee to:
authorize a direct contest for disqualification of a
beneficiary under the presumption of fraud or undue influence
statutes so that an individual who was not appointed as the
executor or personal representative (such as in Treadway v.
Free Pentecostal Pater Ave. Church of God, Inc.) has standing
to challenge the validity of the transfer;
limit the application of the bill to only residential real
property, units in residential cooperatives, or, condominium
units, or a single tract of agriculture real estate consisting
of 40 acres or less which is improved with a single family
residence, which more effectively provides for the transfer of
a person's home without the additional, and, arguably,
unnecessary ability to transfer commercial real estate; and
allow the beneficiary of the deed to disclaim the transfer in
case the beneficiary does not want the property.
Author's amendments :
1. On page 20, strike lines 12 through 21 and insert:
5610. "Real property" means real property improved with not
less than one nor more than four residential dwelling units,
units in residential cooperatives; or, condominium units,
including the limited common elements allocated to the exclusive
use thereof that form an integral part of the condominium unit;
or a single tract of agriculture real estate consisting of 40
acres or less which is improved with a single family residence."
2. On page 29, in line 18, strike and replace "Except as
provided in paragraph (2)" with "Subject to the
beneficiary's right to disclaim the transfer"
3. On page 35, in line 3, strike the text after "(a)" and
lines 4 through 6, and insert:
(1) An action for the disqualification of a beneficiary under
Part 3.7 (commencing with Section 21360) of Division 11 may be
brought to contest the validity of a transfer of property by a
revocable transfer on death deed.
(2) An action to contest the validity of a transfer of property
by a revocable transfer on death deed may be filed by the
transferor's personal representative or an interested person
under Part 19 (commencing with Section 850) of Division 2.
AB 139 (Gatto)
Page 12 of ?
Additionally, the California Assessors' Association, Executive
Committee of the Trust and Estate Section of the State Bar or
California (TEXCOM), and the California Advocates for Nursing
Home Reform raised various concerns regarding notarization,
testamentary capacity, and instructions attached to the TOD deed
form. Accordingly, this bill was previously amended as follows:
instead of the lower standard of "testamentary capacity"
requirement in prior TOD deed bills, the amendments instead
authorize an owner of real property who has the capacity to
contract to make a revocable TOD deed;
requires the TOD deed to be notarized;
clarifies the TOD deed form and common questions sections on
the form to require the legal description of the property, the
full name of the beneficiary and relationship of the
beneficiary to the transferor, and require the TOD deed to
contain the exact name of the transferor as it appears on the
title documents of the property;
clarifies the TOD deed common questions section as to how to
revoke the TOD deed, what happens if the transferor creates a
new document that disposes of the property, as well as
liability for Medi-Cal reimbursement;
strikes a provision that would have provided the bill would
not invalidate a deed otherwise effective to convey title to
the property that is not recorded until after the death of the
owner;
provides anti-lapse provisions, modeled after the Uniform Real
Property Transfer on Death Act, to clarify that if a
beneficiary is not living at the time the property transfers
to a beneficiary, the interest lapses; if there are multiple
beneficiaries that survive the transferor, they take the
property as tenants in common, in equal shares, and the share
of a beneficiary that fails or lapses is transferred to the
other beneficiaries in equal shares;
clarifies that if the property is restored to the transferor's
estate, as specified, the property is treated as a specific
gift and any proceeds remaining from the sale of the property
after the payment of creditor's claims are returned to the
beneficiary; and
revises the contest statutes of limitations and contests of
the conservator or guardian of a transferor prior to the
transferor's death.
These amendments significantly narrow the bill, provide greater
protection from bad actors, and clarify the use of the TOD deed
AB 139 (Gatto)
Page 13 of ?
form so that individuals are better informed about the
requirements and effects of the deed.
3. Public and private creditors: beneficiary is personally
liable for transferor's debts
Under this bill, a creditor of the transferor who has an
encumbrance or lien of record against the property transferred
by a revocable TOD deed has priority over a creditor of the
beneficiary, regardless of whether the beneficiary incurred the
obligation before or after the transferor's death and regardless
of whether the obligation is secured or unsecured, voluntary or
involuntary, recorded or unrecorded. (Proposed Sec. 5670.)
A beneficiary is personally liable to a creditor for the
unsecured debts of the transferor, to the extent provided under
the bill. (Proposed Sec. 5672.) Because the goal of the
revocable TOD deed is to transfer property directly and, thus,
avoid probate, the only mechanism for collecting on outstanding
liabilities of the estate of the transferor would be a civil
action against the revocable TOD deed beneficiary to restore or
return the property so it may be liquidated and distributed to
creditors.
Additionally, decedents may have received Medi-Cal services for
several years prior to death. Typically, the Department of
Health Care Services (DHCS) collects the costs of medical
services from the decedent's estate, which in many instances
consists only of the decedent's home. This bill would allow the
decedent's home to pass to a beneficiary, subject to a Medi-Cal
reimbursement claim, which may result in costly litigation by
DHCS to collect from an uncooperative TOD deed beneficiary.
Although the beneficiary of a TOD is still responsible for any
debts associated with the estate, there is no mechanism, outside
of civil action, for collecting outstanding debt. For
individuals with no will and no person available to act as
estate administrator, the public administrator would be
appointed, and neither public administrator offices, nor
counties, can afford to pay for a civil proceeding to collect
debt that would have otherwise been awarded in the probate
process.
However, this bill is similar to the other non-probate process
for transferring title of a small estate ($150,000 or less),
which also makes the petitioning party liable for creditor
AB 139 (Gatto)
Page 14 of ?
claims. Alternatively, if the property is transferred through a
trust, creditors are severely limited in their ability to
collect on debts until the trustee initiates a creditors claims
process, which the trustee may, but is not required, to perform.
(Prob. Code Sec. 19000, et seq.)
4. Recordation requirement
This bill requires the revocable TOD deed to be recorded within
60 days of its execution and notarization. Although Ohio has no
recordation deadline, it's courts have determined that public
policy supports the requirement that a TOD deed be recorded
before the death of the grantor because the designation of a TOD
beneficiary can be revoked or changed at any time, without the
consent of the beneficiary, by the owner's executing and
recording a deed to one or more persons, including the owner,
with or without the designation of another TOD beneficiary, so
the requirement that the deed be recorded before the grantor's
death helps alleviate concerns about fraud and undue influence,
and the formality of the recording process helps ensure that the
owner intended to make the transfer. (Mattia v. Hall (2008)
2008 Ohio 180.)
5. Sunset and report requirement
This bill contains a sunset date of January 1, 2021, and as of
that date would be repealed unless another bill extended or
removed the sunset. Importantly, this bill also requires the
CLRC, by January 1, 2020, to study the utility and potential
problems with the revocable TOD deed after it has been enacted,
and report its findings to the Legislature for its consideration
in extending or removing the sunset. These provisions will help
the Legislature determine whether the concerns regarding elder
and dependent adult financial abuse have been realized or
whether the TOD deed is working as intended.
Support : AARP California; California Communities United
Institute; California Senior Legislature; Conference of
California Bar Associations; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Opposition : California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform
HISTORY
AB 139 (Gatto)
Page 15 of ?
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 699 (Wagner, 2011) See Background; Comment 2.
AB 724 (DeVore, 2010) See Background; Comment 2.
AB 250 (DeVore, 2007) See Background; Comment 2.
AB 12 (DeVore, Chapter 422, Statutes of 2005) See Background;
Comment 2.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 78, Noes 0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 16, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
**************