BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2226
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION
Mary Hayashi, Chair
AB 2226 (Hueso) - As Amended: March 22, 2012
SUBJECT : Agency proceedings: evidence: presumption.
SUMMARY : Provides that the owner of a legal title is presumed
to be the owner of the full beneficial title in proceedings
before state agencies, cities, counties, or city and counties.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that in a proceeding before a state agency, city,
county, or city and county, as specified, if the title to or
ownership of a property is in question, the owner of the legal
title to the property is presumed to be the owner of the full
beneficial title, as specified.
2)Specifies that the requirements of this bill apply to all
state agencies, even if otherwise exempt from provisions
related to administrative adjudication, as specified, or if
the governing procedure of the agency is determined by a
different statute or regulation.
3)States legislative intent.
EXISTING LAW
1)Specifies that in proceedings and hearings before a court, a
presumption exists that the owner of the legal title to
property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial
title and provides that this presumption can only be rebutted
by clear and convincing proof.
2)Establishes procedures for adjudicative proceedings by state
agencies.
3)Provides that the governing procedure by which an agency
conducts an adjudicative proceeding is determined by the
statutes and regulations applicable to that proceeding and if
no other governing procedure is provided by statute or
regulation, an agency may conduct an adjudicative proceeding
under the administrative adjudication provisions of the
AB 2226
Page 2
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), as specified.
4)Provides that a state or federal statute or regulation
applicable to a particular agency or decision prevails over a
conflicting or inconsistent provision in current provisions
governing the administrative adjudication provisions of the
APA.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS :
Purpose of this bill . According to the author, "Traditionally,
questions regarding ownership of property have been addressed by
the courts. The California Evidence Code creates a presumption
in court proceedings that the title holder will be recognized as
the owner of the property except when there is unequivocal
evidence to the contrary. Specifically, Evidence Code section
662 states, 'The owner of the legal title to property is
presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title. This
presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing proof.'
Thus, the holder of title should be recognized as the owner of
the property except in extremely limited circumstances that are
beyond reasonable dispute.
"In recent years, state and local agencies have begun to
consider issues involving ownership of property and the
applicability of Evidence Code section 662 in proceedings before
these agencies has been questioned. The fact that a state or
local agency may not recognize the presumption in its
proceedings creates the very uncertainty in the marketplace that
Evidence Code section 662 was intended to prevent.
"California's strong presumption of ownership embodied in
Evidence Code section 662 should clearly and unequivocally apply
in every proceeding where property ownership is in question. A
landowner should not be afforded less protection in proceedings
before California's state and local agencies than is afforded in
California's courts.
"The proposed legislation would make clear that Evidence Code
section 662 applies in all proceedings before California state
and local agencies. It would assure that the standards for
deciding ownership are applied consistently and uniformly."
AB 2226
Page 3
Background . Traditionally, questions regarding ownership of
property have been addressed by the courts. California Evidence
Code Section 662 creates a presumption in court proceedings that
the title holder will be recognized as the owner of the
property, except when there is unequivocal evidence to the
contrary. This presumption may be rebutted only by clear and
convincing evidence.
Support . The sponsor of this bill, the California Business
Property Association, writes in support, "This bill clarifies
that the holder of title is the owner and proper and assures
that concept is applied in proceedings before public agencies to
assure that standards for deciding property ownership are
applied consistently and uniformly.
"Stable and predictable titles is an essential element of a
functioning real estate economy. It requires certainty that the
holder of title will be recognized uniformly as the owner of the
property. California cannot expect to maintain a stable real
estate economy if buyers cannot be assured they are acquiring
all of the rights that are incident to ownership."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Business Properties Association (sponsor)
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Rebecca May / B.,P. & C.P. / (916)
319-3301