SB-2

User avatar
Gwen del Castillo
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:05 am
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: SB-2

Postby Gwen del Castillo » Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:06 am

From the OC Recorder's Office: "Documents believed to be exempt from the new SB2 fee, must be labeled "EXEMPT" with a valid exemption on the face of the document , or on the cover page, prior to submitting the document for recording with the County Recorder." So apparently the determination is to be made prior to submitting for recordation/filing .?

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 1741
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: SB-2

Postby mpallamary » Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:52 am

I am involved in a lawsuit and one of the arguments involves the distinction between filing and recording of Record of Survey maps (in San Diego.) I met with the County Recorder and discussed that matter and it is as I suspected.

A Record of Survey is both filed and recorded while normal documents are merely recorded. That is because once a deed is recorded and copied it is thrown away. The recorder does not keep anything. When a Record of Survey is recorded, the filing number is assigned to the map in addition to the ROS map and it is logged on a recording notice. The map is notated with the instrument number and it is then filed with the recorder after being recorded. That is one of the reasons maps are printed onto mylar and previously linen. They are intended to remain as a filed document for perpetuity.

I hope this makes sense. Recorded and filed.

8762 PLSA


(1) Material evidence or physical change, which in whole or in part does not
appear on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey previously recorded or
properly filed
in the office of the county recorder or county surveying department, or map
or survey record maintained by the Bureau of Land Management of the United States.

(2) A material discrepancy with the information contained in any subdivision
map, official map, or record of survey previously recorded or filed in the office of the
county recorder or the county surveying department, or any map or survey record
maintained by the Bureau of Land Management of the United States. For purposes of
this subdivision, a “material discrepancy” is limited to a material discrepancy in the
position of points or lines, or in dimensions.

(3) Evidence that, by reasonable analysis, might result in materially alternate
positions of lines or points, shown on any subdivision map, official map, or record of
survey previously recorded or filed
in the office of the county recorder or the county
surveying department, or any map o

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 1741
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: SB-2

Postby mpallamary » Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:54 am

8763. Record of survey - sheet requirement
The record of survey shall be a map, legibly drawn, printed, or reproduced by a process
guaranteeing a permanent record in black on tracing cloth, or polyester base film, 18 by 26
inches or 460 by 660 millimeters. If ink is used on polyester base film, the ink surface shall be
coated with a suitable substance to assure permanent legibility.
A marginal line shall be drawn
completely around each sheet leaving an entirely blank margin of one inch or 25 millimeters.

User avatar
Ian Wilson
Posts: 842
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:58 am
Location: Bay Area

Re: SB-2

Postby Ian Wilson » Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:40 pm

BTW, Michael, when a deed is recorded, it is mailed to the recipient listed in the block, usually at the upper right corner of the cover page, where it says "When recorded mail to..." or similar wording. That's how I got my deed when Laura and I bought our house earlier this year.

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 1741
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: SB-2

Postby mpallamary » Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:43 pm

Yes Ian! You are correct! I should have made that notation.

Many thanks for the clarification! Hopefully, someone hangs on to the deeds/documents. We recently scanned all those documents and stick them away.

Good catch and clarification!

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 1741
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: SB-2

Postby mpallamary » Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:39 am

Ian, once again for pointing out my omission! I appreciate it very much. Now to the more important issue, how was the wedding?

User avatar
surveyoron
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:02 pm
Location: Eureka, CA
Contact:

Re: SB-2

Postby surveyoron » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:03 am

What about a geodetic control network Record of Survey that has nothing to do with "Real Property" or "Real Estate"?
Ron Garton, PLS 7717
County Surveyor
Humboldt County, CA

User avatar
Warren Smith
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Sonora

Re: SB-2

Postby Warren Smith » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:20 am

Our Recorder sent out a memo with the proviso that documents purporting to be exempt have a statement declaring the basis for exemption.

The statute mentions that documents already exempt from a recording fee will not have the surcharge added.
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor
Tuolumne County

User avatar
Ian Wilson
Posts: 842
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:58 am
Location: Bay Area

Re: SB-2

Postby Ian Wilson » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:30 am

Thanks, Warren. The exemption is for owner occupied parcels. So, does that mean that if we prepare a Record of Survey for a client on the parcel on which their house sits, there will be no fee?

And, if a Record of Survey imposes no constructive notice, can it be considered as one of the documents?

User avatar
dedkad
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:55 pm

Re: SB-2

Postby dedkad » Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:33 pm

I just asked our County Recorder for the latest info. They have been meeting with other County Recorders and are having some big statewide Recorder meeting next week where some final determinations will be made. As of today, my Recorder's office said that pretty much any recorded document, including maps, will have to pay the fee, except documents that are exempt from any recording fees. They also said that the maximum fee assessed to a property is $225, as long as the property is owned by the same person. It will be up to the property owner to keep track of this fee and provide documentation to the recorder that they have paid the maximum.

User avatar
Jim Frame
Posts: 1035
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
Location: Davis, CA

Re: SB-2

Postby Jim Frame » Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:44 pm

Does the new fee kick in January 1? I need to make sure I don't neglect to account for it when proposing on work to be delivered after the start date.

User avatar
Warren Smith
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Sonora

Re: SB-2

Postby Warren Smith » Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:49 pm

Jim,

Yes. (actually January 2)
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor
Tuolumne County

User avatar
Tom Herrin
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Highland, CA
Contact:

Re: SB-2

Postby Tom Herrin » Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:52 pm

Link to the new language for reference:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... 1720180SB2

There seems to be pretty universal anticipated application of this new statute across the state, as different County Recorder's offices are talking to each other and utilizing their own professional organizations to establish their interpretations of SB-2.

The language in the statute talks about fees charged at $75 "per each single transaction per parcel of real property", not to exceed $225. This is open to confusion. How much would an RS of multiple parcels be charged, assuming no other exemptions come in to play? Subdivision maps? See section 27388.1 (a)(1) of the CA Govt. Code.

As for the exemptions, listed in Section 27388.1 (a)(2), there are two separate cases. Documents recorded "in connection with a transfer subject to the imposition of a documentary transfer tax" are one, and and documents "recorded in connection with a transfer of real property that is a residential dwelling to an owner-occupier" are the other. A good percentage of records of survey potentially fall under these exemptions. If it were me submitting one of these maps, I would be placing the exemption language on the face of the R.S. and requesting not to pay the fee. These exemptions would also apply to most residential lot line adjustments.

Couple of what if's:

R.S. of a single line or point of a property? This is not a survey of a parcel. Fee or no fee?

R.S. of monumentation for preservation purposes in compliance with 8771, with no lines or parcels established?

Certificates of correction and/or ammending maps?

Geodetic control network was already mentioned above.

Unfortunately, the 'clarification' part of 27388.1 (a)(1) just lists "maps" as one of the types of documents that fall under this new fee.

Finally, the poorly written language of this new statute specifically includes mechanics liens as a type of document that is subject to the tax. What were they thinking on this one? The person filing this document has already been wronged in some fashion, and is now subject to additional fees? Nice.
Tom Herrin
County Surveyor
County of San Bernardino

User avatar
Steve Martin
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:24 pm
Location: Hayward

Re: SB-2

Postby Steve Martin » Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:17 am

Another exception to recording fees:

Government 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.)

User avatar
dedkad
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:55 pm

Re: SB-2

Postby dedkad » Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:21 pm

Steve Martin wrote:Another exception to recording fees:

Government 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.)


I've got an email into our Counsel to see what types of documents they consider are a benefit to my agency, rather than the developer. Some are obvious, like easements. Some are not. The Recorder said they would accept our Counsel's determination.

User avatar
land butcher
Posts: 1531
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:26 pm
Location: calif

Re: SB-2

Postby land butcher » Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:12 pm

Does this fee apply to mechanics liens?

User avatar
Warren Smith
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Sonora

Re: SB-2

Postby Warren Smith » Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:21 pm

Yes - mechanic's liens are mentioned specifically in the statute, just before maps.
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor
Tuolumne County

User avatar
land butcher
Posts: 1531
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:26 pm
Location: calif

Re: SB-2

Postby land butcher » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:30 pm

Jeez, what a broke State won't do. How many $billions/year do they intend to steal and send to CalPERS?

User avatar
DC144
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:06 am

Re: SB-2

Postby DC144 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:12 pm

we got an email letter, from our county surveyor office, here in San Diego, that they spoke with the recorders office, and yes ROSs will be hit with the fee

User avatar
Warren Smith
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Sonora

Re: SB-2

Postby Warren Smith » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:09 pm

Our Recorder just issued a memo stating examples of declarations of exemption. Among them is one stating that the document is exempt under Government Code Section 27388.1(a)(1), because it is not related to real property. The local requirement is to place the declaration on the first sheet of the document.

Some records of survey are not, arguably, related by virtue of complying with section 8771 of the PLSA (monument preservation), nor are geodetic control records of survey (non-cadastral). We'll give it a shot first chance we get, and let you know.
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor
Tuolumne County

User avatar
Warren Smith
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Sonora

Re: SB-2

Postby Warren Smith » Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:54 am

Here's a link to Notices put out by various County Recorders about implementing the new fee.

https://clta.site-ym.com/page/SB2CountyDocs
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor
Tuolumne County

User avatar
land butcher
Posts: 1531
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:26 pm
Location: calif

Re: SB-2

Postby land butcher » Tue Dec 26, 2017 7:38 pm

"In 2017, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 2, The Affordable Housing and Jobs Act which adds a new tax on certain recorded real estate documents. The Affordable Housing and Jobs Act (Government Code 27388.1) states:"

Over the last decade the "spend their money" people in Sac have added taxes to EVERY form of building material there is, one of the biggest is the 1% tax on lumber, and now they impose a $75 fee on all RE recordings to supply Affordable Housing.

My verbal response is verboten on this site.

User avatar
Jim Frame
Posts: 1035
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
Location: Davis, CA

Re: SB-2

Postby Jim Frame » Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:45 am

I've been informed by Public Works staff that the Yolo County Recorder will not apply the fee to Records of Survey.

User avatar
Gwen del Castillo
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:05 am
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: SB-2

Postby Gwen del Castillo » Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:52 pm

"Thank you for your inquiry to the Orange County Clerk-Recorder Department.
At this time our office will not be providing a “list” of titles SB2 applies to.
Please know SB2 does apply to Maps as well, the fee will be collected on the maps the you have listed, unless an exemption applies and is included on the map."

Received the above response from the OC Recorder's Office, had asked specifically about Parcel Maps, Tract Maps and Record of Surveys.

User avatar
btaylor
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:33 pm
Location: Foster City, CA

Re: SB-2

Postby btaylor » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:52 pm

Jim Frame wrote:I've been informed by Public Works staff that the Yolo County Recorder will not apply the fee to Records of Survey.


Interesting. San Francisco and San Mateo Counties are charging the fee, but when I checked with Santa Clara County they did not seem to know about this fee at all.

edit - the email I received from Santa Clara Public Works says they are not aware of any changes to the fees, so I am misstating it that they did not know about the fee. At this point I am assuming the SC recorder does not believe the ROS qualifies.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest