California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Introduced 1 R cosponsors

SB 288 — Property taxation: change in ownership: family homes and farms.

Last action — August 13 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  1. 1
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been introduced in the Senate. Introduced February 06, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.

Odds of enactment

Low chance

Based on the sponsor, cosponsors, and committee posture, this bill has a low chance of becoming law.

Upgrade to see the exact probability and what's driving it.

A statistical estimate from our own model of past outcomes — an insight, not a guarantee. Policymaking is volatile.

Prognosis

Stalled 28% · moderate confidence

  • Introduced

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 R).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 5 recorded votes so far.

Based on stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes, and cross-state momentum — a description of the observable signals, not a prediction.

In plain language

The bill allows extensions for transferring family homes and farms due to probate delays.

This bill changes timing rules for transferring family homes and farms when probate issues delay occupancy. It allows an extra year for the property to be classified as a family home or farm.

What this means for you
  • Workers: Workers related to these family homes or farms may experience less disruption as property transfers are managed more flexibly.
  • Families: Families can benefit from extended deadlines related to inheriting and moving into family homes or farms during probate delays.

Summary

The California Constitution limits the amount of ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property, defined as the county assessor's valuation of real property as shown on the 1975–76 tax bill and, thereafter, the appraised value of the real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership occurs after the 1975 assessment, subject to an annual inflation adjustment not to exceed 2%. Pursuant to constitutional authorization, existing property tax law, on and after February 16, 2021, excludes from classification as a change in ownership the purchase or transfer of a family home or family farm, as those terms are defined, of the transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased, if the property continues as the family home or family farm of the transferee, as specified. For purposes of the transfer of a family home, that law requires the transfer to be of a principal residence of the transferor and to become the principal residence of the transferee within one year of the transfer. That law also requires the transferee to file for the homeowners' or disabled veterans' exemption within a year of the transfer, as described. This bill would provide that the one-year periods described above shall be deemed to end one year after the effective date of certain court orders resolving the disposition of the property if the eligible transferee files specified documents with the assessor, including a copy of a court order indicating that a probate matter prohibited the eligible transferee from establishing the property as their principal place of residence within the one-year period described above. By expanding the duties of local tax officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Existing law requires the state to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding those provisions, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to the bill. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. August 13 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  2. August 5 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.

  3. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.

  5. Referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.

  6. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  7. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 3299.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3268.) (January 22).

  11. Set for hearing January 22.

  12. January 20 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  13. Set for hearing January 20.

  14. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  15. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 3225.) (January 14).

  16. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.

  17. Set for hearing January 14.

  18. Referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.

  19. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 9.

  20. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

3rd Reading

Passed 40 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 30000
Republican 10000
Total 40000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Arreguín, Jesse Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Cabaldon, Christopher Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
McNerney, Jerry Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Pérez, Sasha Renée Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Richardson, Laura Democratic Yea
Rubio, Susan Democratic Yea
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Alvarado-Gil, Marie Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

taxation housing
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 288 do?
The California Constitution limits the amount of ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property, defined as the county assessor's valuation of real property as shown on the 1975–76 tax bill and, thereafter, the appraised value of the real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership occurs after the 1975 assessment, subject to an annual inflation adjustment not to exceed 2%. Pursuant to constitutional authorization, existing property tax law, on and after February 16, 2021, excludes from classification as a change in ownership the purchase or transfer of a family home or family farm, as those terms are defined, of the transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased, if the property continues as the family home or family farm of the transferee, as specified. For purposes of the transfer of a family home, that law requires the transfer to be of a principal residence of the transferor and to become the principal residence of the transferee within one year of the transfer. That law also requires the transferee to file for the homeowners' or disabled veterans' exemption within a year of the transfer, as described. This bill would provide that the one-year periods described above shall be deemed to end one year after the effective date of certain court orders resolving the disposition of the property if the eligible transferee files specified documents with the assessor, including a copy of a court order indicating that a probate matter prohibited the eligible transferee from establishing the property as their principal place of residence within the one-year period described above. By expanding the duties of local tax officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Existing law requires the state to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding those provisions, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to the bill. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Who sponsors SB 288?
SB 288 is sponsored by Seyarto, Kelly (Republican).
What is the current status of SB 288?
This bill has been introduced in the Senate. Introduced February 06, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track SB 288?
Track SB 288 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 288

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 288

Last checked for changes about 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →