BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2314
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2314 (Carter)
As Amended July 2, 2012
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |71-0 |(May 3, 2012) |SENATE: |36-0 |(July 6, 2012) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Removes the sunset on a statute that permits local
governments to fine property owners for failure to maintain
certain property and makes other changes relating to the ability
of a local enforcement agency to abate nuisances and correct
substandard building violations. Specifically, this bill :
1)Removes the sunset on and thereby makes permanent a statute
that requires a legal owner to maintain vacant residential
property purchased or acquired at foreclose.
2)Provides that if a person has purchased, and is in the process
of diligently abating a violation at, a residential property
that has been foreclosed upon on or after January 1, 2008,
then a local enforcement agency shall not commence any action
or proceeding until at least 60 days after the person takes
title to the property, unless a shorter period of time is
deemed necessary by the enforcement agency in its sole
discretion to prevent or remedy an immediate threat to the
health and safety of the public or occupants of the structure.
3)Requires an entity, that releases a lien securing a deed of
trust or mortgage on a property for which a notice of pendency
of action has been recorded by an enforcement agency, to
notify the enforcement agency in writing within 30 days of
releasing the lien.
4)Provides that where a receiver has been appointed to take
possession of a substandard building, a court may, upon the
request of either the receiver or an enforcement agency, order
the owner of the property to pay all unrecovered costs
associated with the receivership.
AB 2314
Page 2
The Senate amendments specify that an enforcement agency that
elects to shorten the 60 day for abating a violation does so in
its sole discretion and that the notice provided to a local
enforcement agency relating to a notice of pendency shall be in
writing.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version approved by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to give local jurisdictions more
tools to fight blight. It does so first by removing the sunset
on an existing law that requires the legal owner of vacant
foreclosed property to maintain that property or potentially
face a fine of up to $1,000 per day per violation. In addition,
this bill seeks to facilitate the existing authority of local
enforcement agencies to take various actions against owners of
substandard buildings.
In addition, this bill would make three modest changes to the
manner by which local code enforcement agencies address the
problem of foreclosure-related blight. First, it would give
the new owner of a previously cited property additional time to
correct substandard building conditions. Existing law permits a
local enforcement agency to inspect buildings and issue notices
to owners whose buildings create a public nuisance or violate
certain state or local building codes. If after the 30 days'
notice the owner fails to abate the nuisance or correct the
violation - or after a shorter period if the conditions create
an immediate public threat - the enforcement agency must
institute an appropriate action or proceeding to prevent,
restrain, correct, or abate the violation or nuisance. This
bill would amend this law by providing that where the owner has
purchased a recently foreclosed property and is in the process
of abating the nuisance or correcting the violation, then the
enforcement agency shall not commence an enforcement action
until at least 60 days after the person takes title to the
property unless the severity of the conditions warrant a shorter
period. The aim of this provision is to encourage the transfer
of blighted residential property by giving more time to
purchasers who will fix-up the property and make it habitable.
Second, this bill would require a lienholder who releases a lien
AB 2314
Page 3
on any property on which the enforcement agency has recorded a
lis pendens to notify the enforcement agency within 30 days of
releasing the lien. According to the sponsor, when an
enforcement agency must make a determination as to the
appropriate enforcement action, if any, to take against a
substandard property, it is often helpful to know whether or not
any liens have been recorded against the property and if and
when the lien is released. This would create an efficient means
for the enforcement agency to know when a lien has been
released.
Third, this bill would allow for the recovery of certain costs
associated with a health and safety receivership. Existing law
sets forth the conditions for establishing the receivership and
lists certain powers that a court may grant to the receiver.
The receiver's primary function in taking possession of the
property is to do whatever is necessary to correct the
conditions that gave rise to the receivership. This bill does
not change any of the statutory requirements for establishing a
receivership or affect the receiver's statutory powers; it
would, however, once a receivership has been established, permit
either the receiver or the enforcement agency to seek a court
order requiring the owner of the property to pay any
"unrecovered costs" of the receivership (i.e., presumably those
costs not covered by the loans, rents, or other revenue
sources). This would ensure that costs associated with
rehabilitating the property are borne by the responsible party;
the recalcitrant owner who refuses to correct conditions even
after being placed on notice. Arguably, existing receivership
statutes, which grant courts considerable discretion, would
permit such a requirement in the initial court order creating
the receivership. This bill, however, would expressly state
that the receiver or the enforcement agency could request such
an order if one is not initially provided. The bill specifies
that the court "may" grant such an order; discretion will
ultimately remain, consistent with existing law, with the court.
Analysis Prepared by : Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0004395
AB 2314
Page 4