BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 679
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
679 (Travis Allen)
As Amended May 18, 2015
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+---------------------+--------------------|
|Local |6-1 |Maienschein, |Alejo |
|Government | |Gonzalez, Chiu, | |
| | |Holden, Linder, | |
| | |Waldron | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+---------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |16-0 |Gomez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
| | |Chang, Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Wagner, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Requires any document presented for county recording to
state the number of pages to be recorded. Specifically, this
AB 679
Page 2
bill:
1)Requires any instrument, paper, or notice presented for
recordation to state the number of pages to be recorded.
2)Allows the number of pages to be recorded to be stated on a
cover page or a sticker on the first page of the instrument,
paper, or notice.
3)Requires the county recorder to verify that the number of pages
to be recorded stated on the cover page or sticker matches the
number of pages presented for recordation.
EXISTING LAW requires the recorder of each county, upon payment of
proper fees and taxes, to accept for recordation any instrument,
paper, or notice that is authorized or required by law to be
recorded. These documents must comply with specified standards
respecting margins, quality of paper, print size and color, and
other related matters.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, minor nonreimbursable state mandated costs. County
recorders are authorized to assess fees to recover the
administrative cost of recording documents if the administrative
cost increases.
COMMENTS:
1)Bill Summary. This bill requires any document presented for
county recording to state the number of pages to be recorded,
which can be satisfied with a cover page or a sticker attached
to the first page of the filing. This bill also requires the
AB 679
Page 3
recorder to verify this page count. This bill is sponsored by
the author.
2)Author's Statement. According to the author, "This bill would
require that a count of all pages to be submitted be on the
front page of recorded documents to ensure that no documents are
lost. AB 679 will make it easier for individuals who are
submitting documents to be recorded by the county to ensure all
pages of a given document are present. This will, therein,
reduce the risk of lengthy and expensive court procedures to
restore or verify recorded documents."
3)Background. Existing law requires the recorder of each county,
upon payment of proper fees and taxes, to accept for recordation
any instrument, paper, or notice that is authorized or required
by law to be recorded. These documents must comply with
specified standards respecting margins, quality of paper, print
size and color, and other related matters.
This recording is done by a county-appointed official, the
County Recorder (or, in some counties, the Clerk-Recorder), who
officially records these documents and archives them for public
access. Documents that are commonly recorded include payments
of taxes or fees, filings of fictitious business names, deeds,
mortgage documents, easements, power of attorney documents,
liens, and any documents that affect the ownership of any given
property.
According to the author, when documents are processed by a
county recorder, pages can be lost or go missing, resulting in
lengthy and expensive court processes to restore the document
and/or provide a new copy. This bill requires documents
submitted for recording to state the number of pages to be
recorded on the first page, to ensure that no documents are
lost. This bill also requires the county recorder to verify
AB 679
Page 4
this page count.
4)Arguments in Support. None on file.
5)Arguments in Opposition. The California Land Title Association
(CLTA), which has taken an "oppose, unless amended" position,
writes:
AB 679 could render some documents unrecordable or
invalid simply because a new pagination requirement is
not fully met: AB 679 would require documents presented
to county recorders for recordation to state the number
of pages to be recorded sticker affixed to the cover
page of the document. While CLTA applauds the intent of
the legislation, AB 679 as drafted stands to
unnecessarily complicate the recordation process and
could unintentionally call into question the
recordability or validity of documents that do not meet
the statute's requirements as currently drafted.
Furthermore, AB 679 provides no safeguards against
instances of missing or inaccurate page counts, which
could call into question the recordability or validity
of documents that have not met the statute's
requirements simply because the new pagination count
requirement created by this bill is not met or is
slightly inaccurate. Amendments need to be added that
make clear that failing to comply with this new
requirement do NOT render the document unrecordable or
invalid.
AB 679 could result in delays in real property
transactions: The new requirement, if it is interpreted
to make a document unrecordable or invalid could
AB 679
Page 5
substantially slow down real estate transactions if
documents are rejected at the time of presentation, or
complicate consummated transactions if the validity of
documents is challenged after recordation due to missing
or inaccurate page counts. It is vital that AB 679
expressly states that if the page counts are missing or
inaccurate that the recordability or validity of the
documents not be affected.
AB 679 should be optional for country recorders: Given
that there has not been a [hue] and cry throughout
California to require pagination up to this point, CLTA
asserts that such a requirement is an isolated matter
and county recorders, subject to retooling of operations
and procedures every time a new recording requirement is
created, should be free to adopt or reject this new
requirement. In short, counties should be allowed to
'opt in' to such a program. CLTA believes amendments
should be taken to make this opt in provision clear.
Analysis Prepared by:
Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN:
0000531