BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 2226
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 2226 (Hueso)
          As Amended  March 22, 2012
          Majority vote 

           BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS          6-1                             
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Hayashi, Allen, Butler,   |     |                          |
          |     |Eng, Hill, Ma             |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Hagman                    |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           
          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 








                                                                  AB 2226
                                                                  Page  2


            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 
            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 by the 
          Legislative Counsel.

           COMMENTS  :  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.

          "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



          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.  

           
          Analysis Prepared by  :    Rebecca May / B.,P. & C.P. / (916) 
          319-3301 


                                                                FN: 0003326