AB 985 — Real property: discriminatory restrictions.

Summary

(1) Existing law prohibits discrimination in housing through restrictive covenants based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, national origin, source of income, or ancestry and provides that discrimination in housing through a restrictive covenant includes the existence of a restrictive covenant regardless of whether accompanied by a statement that the covenant is repealed or void. Existing law similarly declares that any provision in any deed of real property in California that purports to restrict the right of any person to sell, lease, rent, use, or occupy the property to persons having any specified characteristic, including, but not limited to, race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, disability, source of income, or sexual orientation, by providing for payment of a penalty, forfeiture, reverter, or otherwise, is void, except as specified. Existing law provides that any deed or other written instrument that relates to title to real property, or any written covenant, condition, or restriction annexed or made a part of, by reference or otherwise, any deed or instrument, that contains any provision that purports to forbid, restrict, or condition the right of any person or persons to sell, buy, lease, rent, use, or occupy the property on account of any of the above-specified characteristics, shall be deemed to be revised to omit that provision. Existing law also authorizes a person who holds an ownership interest of record in property that he or she believes is the subject of an unlawfully restrictive covenant based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, national origin, source of income, or ancestry, to record a Restrictive Covenant Modification, which would include a copy of the original document with the illegal language stricken. Before recording the modification document, the county recorder is required to submit the modification document and the original document to the county counsel who is required to determine whether the original document contains an unlawful restriction based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, national origin, source of income, or ancestry. The county recorder is required to make Restrictive Covenant Modification forms available to the public. Under existing law, a county recorder, title insurance company, escrow company, real estate broker, real estate agent, or association that provides a copy of a declaration, governing document, or deed to any person is required to place a cover page or stamp on the previously recorded document stating that if the document contains an unlawful restriction, that restriction is void and may be removed by recording a Restrictive Covenant Modification. This bill would require a county recorder, title insurance company, escrow company, real estate broker, real estate agent, or association that provides a copy of a declaration, governing document, or deed to a person who holds an ownership interest of record in property to also provide a Restrictive Covenant Modification form with specified procedural information to that person. The bill would authorize a title insurance company, escrow company, real estate broker, real estate agent, or other person to record a Restrictive Covenant Modification, in addition to the owner of record, and would require the requester to provide a return address in order for the county recorder to notify the interested party of the action taken by county counsel on the respective property. The bill would require the county counsel to make a determination whether the language identified by the requester in the original document contains an unlawful restriction within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 3 months, as specified, and would authorize the county counsel to compile a list of phrases identified as unlawfully restrictive language for the purpose of expediting that determination. The bill would require the county recorder to make Restrictive Covenant Modification forms available to the public onsite in an appropriately designated area, and would permit multiple submissions on behalf of different homes and for processing homes in batches with respect to a modification document that affects multiple homes or lots. These new duties would impose a state‑mandated local program on the county recorder and county counsel. (2) Existing law requires the recorder of each county to establish a social security number truncation program in order to create a public record version of each official record so that the public record is in an electronic format and is an exact copy of the official record, except that any social security number contained in the official record shall be truncated by redacting the first 5 digits of that number. These provisions apply to any document recorded since January 1, 1980, as specified. If a public record version of an official record exists, and upon a request of any person to inspect, copy, or to otherwise publicly disclose that record, the recorder shall make available only the public record version of that record, and publicly disclose the official record only in response to a subpoena or court order. The county recorder may, upon authorization of the board of supervisors, charge an additional fee of $1 for recording the first page of each document to be used to implement a social security number truncation program pursuant to these provisions. The county auditor is required, at the request of the county board of supervisors, to verify that these fees are used only for the purpose of the program. This bill would require the recorder of each county to create a public record version of each official record for which a Restrictive Covenant Modification is recorded on or after January 1, 2010, so that the public record is in an electronic format and is an exact copy of the official record, except that any unlawfully restrictive covenant contained in the official record shall be redacted. The bill would specify that an electronic version of the unredacted record, for which a Restrictive Covenant Modification is recorded, would become the official record for the purposes of these provisions. If a public record version of an official record exists, and upon request of any person to inspect, copy, or to otherwise publicly disclose that record, the recorder shall make available only the public record version of that record, and publicly disclose the official record only in response to a subpoena or court order. The bill would provide that the county recorder shall not incur any liability for a procedural, clerical, or administrative error in the recording of a modification document or any other activity related to the redaction of an unlawfully restrictive covenant pursuant to these provisions. The bill would also exempt the county counsel from liability, as specified. The bill would require the county recorder to charge an initial fee of not more than $2, as specified, for recording the first page of each property-related document to be used by the county for the sole purpose of performing activities related to the redaction of an unlawfully restrictive covenant pursuant to these provisions or those described in (1) above. The bill would require the board of supervisors to adjust the fee to a whole dollar amount reasonably sufficient to recover costs. By creating new duties for county recorders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) This bill would make legislative findings that any limitation on the public's right of access to the writings of public officials and agencies made by its provisions is necessary to protect against the risk of discrimination. (4) 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 the Legislature finds there is no mandate contained in the bill that will result in costs incurred by a local agency or school district for a new program or higher level of service which require reimbursement pursuant to these constitutional and statutory provisions.

Bill Text

• Enrolled 09/21/09 - Enrolled Current pdf September 21, 2009
• Amended 09/10/09 - Amended Senate pdf September 10, 2009
• Amended 09/04/09 - Amended Senate pdf September 04, 2009
• Amended 09/02/09 - Amended Senate pdf September 02, 2009
• Amended 07/09/09 - Amended Senate pdf July 09, 2009
• Amended 07/07/09 - Amended Senate pdf July 07, 2009
• Amended 07/01/09 - Amended Senate pdf July 01, 2009
• Amended 06/09/09 - Amended Senate pdf June 09, 2009
• Introduced 02/27/09 - Introduced pdf February 27, 2009
• AB985 View text html

Action History

1. January 14, 2010

   Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.

2. October 26, 2009

   Consideration of Governor's veto pending.

3. October 11, 2009

   Vetoed by Governor.

4. September 25, 2009

   Enrolled and to the Governor at 5 p.m.

5. September 12, 2009

   Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 50. Noes 27. Page 3390.)

6. September 11, 2009

   In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.

7. September 11, 2009

   Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 24. Noes 8. Page 2420.)

8. September 10, 2009

   Read third time, amended, and returned to third reading.

9. September 10, 2009

   Joint Rule 61(a)(13) suspended. (Page 2382.)

10. September 10, 2009

    Action rescinded whereby the bill was read third time, passed, and to Assembly.

11. September 09, 2009

    Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 23. Noes 2. Page 2333.)

12. September 08, 2009

    Read second time. To third reading.

13. September 04, 2009

    Read third time, amended. To second reading.

14. September 02, 2009

    Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

15. September 01, 2009

    From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 1.) (August 27).

16. July 13, 2009

    In committee: Placed on Appropriations suspense file.

17. July 09, 2009

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.

18. July 07, 2009

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.

19. July 06, 2009

    In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

20. July 01, 2009

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.

21. June 29, 2009

    In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

22. June 22, 2009

    Withdrawn from committee. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

23. June 16, 2009

    From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on B., F. & I. Re-referred. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (June 16).

24. June 09, 2009

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

25. June 01, 2009

    In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

26. May 21, 2009

    Referred to Coms. on JUD. and B., F. & I.

27. May 14, 2009

    In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

28. May 14, 2009

    Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 71. Noes 0. Page 1462.)

29. April 22, 2009

    Read second time. To third reading.

30. April 21, 2009

    From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 21).

31. March 26, 2009

    Referred to Com. on JUD.

32. March 02, 2009

    Read first time.

33. March 01, 2009

    From printer. May be heard in committee March 30.

34. February 27, 2009

    Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

• De La Torre · Primary
• Krekorian · Cosponsor

Votes

Subjects