SB-2

[rmaher]

Just experienced Orange County Recorder, through Orange County Surveyor collecting $75 for a Certificate of Correction.

This was the extent of the certificate:

The following corrections or additions are hereby made to Parcel Map No. XXX-XX filed in Book XXX , Pages(s) XX to XX of Parcel Maps, in the office of the Recorder of Orange County:

1. The monuments set at the southwest and the southeast comers of Parcel No. 2, are spike and washers stamped "L.S. XXX" on a 4.00' offset on the southerly prolongation of the west and east property lines of Parcel No. 2.

Recording Fee $9
Fraud Fee $3
Affordable Housing and Jobs Act Fee $75

[...and I didn't notice until afterwards that LA Stevens posted essentially the same thing]

[rmaher]

There is a webinar, next week:

Wednesday, February 28th from 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM.

The webinar will provide information on SB 2 and will be presented by CLSA's Legislative Advocate, Mike Belote and Lexie Howard.

You can register and create calendar events through this link:

http://oc-surveyors.org/events/2018/2/2 ... d-jobs-act

[Steve Martin]

SB 2: County Recorder Bulletins

In October 2017, SB 2 (Ch. 364, 2017) was signed into law by Governor Brown, creating a $75 fee on the recording of certain documents. This page is intended to act as a repository of bulletins published by the various county recorders within California relating to SB 2.

The content on this page is continually being updated with new information, so check back often for updated information. We strongly advise you contact the county recorder where you are doing business to make sure that the information you get from this page is current.

http://www.clta.org/page/SB2CountyDocs

[mpallamary]

I filed a Certificate of Compliance in San Diego and I was charged a $75.00 fee as an add-on to the document. Nothing was conveyed and nothing was created.

[subman]

The latest from Los Angeles County. The $75 fee is not applicable for documents submitted by the County or City (i.e. subdivision maps, ROS, separate instruments).

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 20180AB110

[David Kendall]

The $75 fee is not applicable for documents submitted by the County or City (i.e. subdivision maps, ROS, separate instruments).

Hallelujah, that is a great relief! Thank you for posting the link. Now how do I get my $75 back from the recorder's office?

I guess my campaign to bypass the CS review process and take the records of survey straight to recorder just took another hit....

Dangit, master plan foiled again. Those government guys are good. Tip your hat

[PLS7393]

Thats great news for LA County, but are all counties in the state mandated to follow?
How do we get the CS to follow up with their Recorder, when in fact there are some CS that have been told they can not talk to the County Recorder?
Yes believe it or not, two departments not allowed to talk to one another, good government right there!

[Warren Smith]

The statute does speak to the surcharge being added only to those documents which are subject to a recording fee. Local agencies are exempt already. It's good that the Los Angeles County Recorder has explicitly pointed that out.

[David Kendall]

Thats great news for LA County, but are all counties in the state mandated to follow?

Assembly Bill applies to the entire state effective yesterday and retroactive. Problem solved. If you already paid $75 recording fee to file a map then go argue with the recorder or write it off but certainly don’t pay it next time.

[-Dave Ryan-]

Governmental agencies were already exempt per Govt. Code 27383.
"No fee shall be charged by the recorder for services rendered to the State, to any municipality, county in the State or other political subdivision thereof, except for making a copy of a paper or record."
(Added by Stats. 1955, Ch. 488.)

However, the typical certificate of correction (unless done by, say a County Surveyor correcting his own map) does not fall under 27383.

[surveyoron]

Record of surveys and Subdivision maps not prepared by a government agency or for a government agency are not exempt from SB2. As County Surveyor I am not the person "submitting" the map. I just take it to the Recorder's Office for the person(s) requesting it to be filed. Sorry to burst your bubble David but you do not get your $75 back. Besides, it shouldn't be your $75. The recording fees should be paid by your client or covered in your invoice.

[land butcher]

[quote=" Besides, it shouldn't be your $75. The recording fees should be paid by your client or covered in your invoice.[/quote]

Fine and dandy on RS's that the contract was negotiated after this came to be, but maps that were contracted before this became public knowledge the surveyor is the one eating the $75.

Interesting how govt employees always ready to charge the public.

[Steve Martin]

Attacking government employees for this is like blaming a surveyor for a design error.

The government employees at the Assessor's office certainly did not want this or advocate for it.

Look to Senator Toni Atkins and all of your elected representatives who voted for SB-2 to fund their agenda for affordable housing at our expense.

[mpallamary]

Yes Steve thanks! I have known Toni Atkins for 25 years and this is exactly what she does and exactly how she operates. Don't get me started. This is all Atkins. (She is from San Diego FYI)

[mpallamary]

See:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opi ... story.html

[David Kendall]

Record of surveys and Subdivision maps not prepared by a government agency or for a government agency are not exempt from SB2. As County Surveyor I am not the person "submitting" the map. I just take it to the Recorder's Office for the person(s) requesting it to be filed. Sorry to burst your bubble David but you do not get your $75 back. Besides, it shouldn't be your $75. The recording fees should be paid by your client or covered in your invoice.

Sonoma County Surveyor is making us put “County Surveyor” in the Recorder’s Statement “Filed at the request of” on RS for a while now. In my mind that makes it executed by the county. I never thought about it because it seemed irrelevant but now.....

City Surveyor could execute subdivision maps by the City. I believe you could do the same thing if you cared to, I assure you that no surveyor up there will argue this point, maybe not even the recorder.

If I’m wrong then we need another legislative opinion but for some reason I never saw the first one... If what you say is true then what is the point of this bill? Government agencies already don’t pay recording fees as Ryan said

[surveyoron]

Breaking News!
I just received this information from the Humboldt County Recorder regarding SB2 fees:

“As you may be aware, in January of this year the California State Senate passed and Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 2 (SB2). This bill required County Recorders to charge an additional fee of $75 per parcel, per instrument, paper, or notice, unless a valid exemption under this statute was stated on the face of the document before submitting for recording. One exemption provided is for all those documents “expressly exempt from recording fees”. This means documents recorded for the benefit of the governmental agency such as tax liens and deeds transferring to a governmental agency entitled to record without recording fees were also exempt from the $75 SB2 fee.

Earlier this month, California Assembly Bill 110 (AB110) was passed. This Bill provides for an additional exemption from the $75 fee for every instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by a governmental agency. All documents signed by or recorded at the request of governmental agencies are now exempt from the SB2 fee. Please be aware, AB110 does not exempt or affect any other standard recording fees which are still due at the time of recording. “

This means that all maps (subdivision maps, records of survey) are exempt from the additional $75 fees imposed by SB2. This exemption may also apply to NOLLA’s CofC’s, Boundary Corrections and other documents. We will be clarifying this on a case by case basis in the future. This information could be subject to change in the future as the interpretation of the bills has been a dynamic situation and future legislation may be pending.

[dedkad]

Land Butcher - Seems to me you have a problem with your contract language if you're eating the costs when recording fees change.

[Anthony Maffia]

AB110 clarifies the exemptions, but I don't see ROS explicitly mentioned, nor mechanics liens :(
Wait and see...

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB110/2017
2018-03-13 Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 8, Statutes of 2018.
2018-03-13 Approved by the Governor.

SEC. 2. Section 27388.1 of the Government Code is amended to read:
27388.1. (a) (1) Commencing January 1, 2018, and except as provided in paragraph (2), in addition to any other recording fees specified in this code, a fee of seventy-five dollars ($75) shall be paid at the time of recording of every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law to be recorded, except those expressly exempted from payment of recording fees, per each single transaction per parcel of real property. The fee imposed by this section shall not exceed two hundred twenty-five dollars ($225). “Real estate instrument, paper, or notice” means a document relating to real property, including, but not limited to, the following: deed, grant deed, trustee’s deed, deed of trust, reconveyance, quit claim deed, fictitious deed of trust, assignment of deed of trust, request for notice of default, abstract of judgment, subordination agreement, declaration of homestead, abandonment of homestead, notice of default, release or discharge, easement, notice of trustee sale, notice of completion, UCC financing statement, mechanic’s lien, maps, and covenants, conditions, and restrictions.
(2) The fee described in paragraph (1) shall not be imposed on any of the following documents:
(A) Any real estate instrument, paper, or notice recorded in connection with a transfer subject to the imposition of a documentary transfer tax as defined in Section 11911 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(B) Any real estate instrument, paper, or notice recorded in connection with a transfer of real property that is a residential dwelling to an owner-occupier.
(C) Any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the federal government in accordance with the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act (Title 7 (commencing with Section 2100) of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
(D) Any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the state or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state.
(b) The county recorder shall remit quarterly, on or before the last day of the month next succeeding each calendar quarterly period, the fees, after deduction of any actual and necessary administrative costs incurred by the county recorder in carrying out this section, to the Controller for deposit in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund established by Section 50470 of the Health and Safety Code, to be expended for the purposes set forth in that section. In addition, the county shall pay to the Controller interest, at the legal rate, on any funds not paid to the Controller before the last day of the month next succeeding each quarterly period.
(c) If the Department of Housing and Community Development determines that any moneys derived from fees collected are being allocated by the state for a purpose not authorized by Section 50470 of the Health and Safety Code, the county recorder shall, upon notice of the determination, immediately cease collection of the fees, and shall resume collection of those fees only upon notice that the moneys derived from the fees collected are being allocated by the state only for a purpose authorized by Section 50470 of the Health and Safety Code.
(d) (1) Subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), as added by the act adding this subdivision, shall apply to any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the federal government on or after January 1, 2018, and the fee imposed by this section shall not be imposed or billed for any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the federal government in accordance with the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act (Title 7 (commencing with Section 2100) of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure) on or after that date.
(2) The Legislature finds and declares that subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), as added by the act adding this subdivision, reflects the original intent of the Legislature in enacting this section and is therefore not a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law. Subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), as added by the act adding this subdivision, shall apply to any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the state or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state on or after January 1, 2018, and the fee imposed by this section shall not be imposed or billed for any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the state or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state on or after that date.

[Warren Smith]

Our Recorder says that they see this applying only to those instruments performed by (or, perhaps, on behalf of) the local agency - not merely approved by. That is, those instruments which are exempt from the base recording fee in the first place.

[surveyoron]

It is my understanding that there is a big county recorder's pow-wow going on right now. We should all get new interpretations very soon. Of course every recorders interpretation is subject to interpretation by county counsels...

[Tom Herrin]

Relevant Section (?):

Section 27388.1 (a)(1)(D) Any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the state or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state.

The Black's Law definition of executed is essentially 'signed'. Approval statements and certification statements are executed, are they not? Am I missing something here? The continued ambiguity for this statute may work in our favor for once.

In any case, AB110 appears to be a win for San Bernardino County. For the moment anyway, according to our recorder, any documents presented by our office for recordation are now exempt from the $75 fee. For us, standard procedure is for our office to deliver to the recorder all Records of Survey, Tracts, and Parcel Maps for recordation, so these will all be exempt. This is not 'recorded at the request of', just who is presenting the physical document for recordatation. The extent of our official notice on this however is an e-mail chain with the recorder's office, so we will se if it holds up.

LLA's, certificates of compliance, ammending maps, and certificates of correction were already exempt for us as they are typically labeled as recorded at the request of the County Surveyor and were exempt as such.

[surveyoron]

Thanks for the information Tom. This SB2 fee has created quite an uproar in the survey community. I have to wonder why so many surveyors are against Housing and Jobs for California?

[VANCE]

Well name one program any government agency has run efficiently or successfully. Just one, and I would gladly pay the fee.

[Ian Wilson]

Ron...

I can't imagine any surveyor being against housing and jobs in California.

What I can imagine is the uproar created by a bill appearing out of nowhere, facing massive opposition from places like California Association of Realtors and the Governor and yet going from first read to chaptered in under 3 months.

A few years back, when we tried to get the Monument Preservation fee applied to all conveyance Deeds rather than just "metes & bounds" description type deeds, we had so much push back, we never even made it out of committee. And that was to keep the same fee but apply it to a small number of additional documents, not $85 applied to just about every document involving real estate.

Just my take...

Ian