California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 902 — Taxation: property tax delinquency and sales.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 208, Statutes of 2011.

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 17, 2011. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 4 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Under existing property tax law, unpaid property taxes are declared delinquent and subject to penalties and costs, and, if the taxes remain unpaid, the property is declared tax-defaulted and subject to sale if not redeemed by the owner within a certain amount of time. Existing law requires a tax collector, in the case of the proposed tax sale of property that is the primary residence of the last known assessee, to make a reasonable effort to contact the owner-occupant of the property to be sold, as specified, and requires that the costs incurred by the tax collector in attempting to make contact, not to exceed $100, be added to the required amount for redemption of the property. This bill would remove the $100 limitation described above, and would instead require the actual and reasonable costs incurred by the tax collector in attempting to make contact to be established by the board of supervisors, as specified. Existing law requires the tax collector, when tax-defaulted property subject to a recorded notice is redeemed, to collect certain fees including, among others, a fee of $35 to reimburse the county for its costs of obtaining the names and last known mailing addresses of, and for mailing specified notices to, parties of interest, in addition to the amount required to redeem the tax-defaulted property. Existing law authorizes the tax collector, if the tax-defaulted property is redeemed prior to the proposed sale, but after the county has incurred costs to publish the notice of intended sale in a newspaper, as provided, to collect a fee to reimburse the tax collector for those costs. This bill would remove the $35 limitation described above, and would instead require the tax collector to collect a fee to reimburse the county for its actual and reasonable costs incurred in obtaining the information of, and for mailing the notices to, parties of interest. This bill would also authorize the tax collector to collect a fee to reimburse the tax collector for the costs of publishing a notice of agreement in a newspaper, as provided, under the circumstances described above. This bill would require the amount of any fee collected by the tax collector when tax-defaulted property subject to a recorded notice is redeemed to be established by the board of supervisors of a county, as provided. Existing law requires the price at which certain tax-defaulted property may be offered for sale to be the total amount necessary to redeem the property, plus costs, and prescribes the manner of distribution of proceeds from the sale of tax-defaulted property, including, among others, a distribution to the county general fund, not to exceed $35, to reimburse the county for the cost of giving of a specified notice, and a distribution to the tax collector, not to exceed $100, to reimburse the county for the costs of a personal contact, as specified. The bill would remove the $35 limitation described above, and would instead require any fee collected to reimburse the county for its actual and reasonable costs incurred in giving notice to be distributed to the county general fund. This bill would also remove the $100 limitation described above, and would instead require a distribution to the tax collector equal to the total amount of the actual and reasonable costs incurred by the tax collector in conducting the personal contact.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 208, Statutes of 2011.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 11:30 a.m.

  4. In Assembly. Ordered to Engrossing and Enrolling.

  5. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 24. Noes 15. Page 1959.).

  6. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  7. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 3.) (June 29).

  8. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  9. Referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

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

  11. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 48. Noes 24. Page 1337.)

  12. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  13. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (April 25).

  14. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

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

  16. From printer. May be heard in committee March 20.

  17. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Alejo · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 6 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Alejo

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 AB902 Alejo By Rubio

Passed 24 Yea · 15 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 221401
Democratic 2000
Republican 0100
Total 241501
% of votes cast 60%38%0%3%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Vargas — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Wyland — Nay
Negrete McLeod — Nay
Runner — Nay
De León — Not Voting
Harman — Nay
Anderson — Nay
Correa — Nay
Dutton — Nay
Huff — Nay
Walters — Nay
Alquist — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Price — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Wright — Yea
Emmerson — Nay
Evans — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Fuller — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
La Malfa — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 6 Yea · 3 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6300
Total 6300
% of votes cast 67%33%0%0%
How each member voted (9)
Member Party Vote
Fuller — Nay
Hancock — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Huff — Nay
Kehoe — Yea
Liu — Yea
Wolk — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
La Malfa — Nay

Official roll call →

AB 902 ALEJO Assembly Third Reading

Passed 48 Yea · 24 Nay · 8 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 452208
Democratic 3000
Republican 0200
Total 482408
% of votes cast 60%30%0%10%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Gordon — Yea
Gorell — Not Voting
Butler — Yea
Campos — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Carter — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Hall — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Hill — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Huber — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Block — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Cook — Nay
Davis — Yea
Lara — Yea
Ma — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Perea — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Williams — Yea
Fletcher — Nay
Portantino — Not Voting
Garrick — Not Voting
Hagman — Nay
Conway — Not Voting
Halderman — Nay
Harkey — Nay
Donnelly — Nay
Knight — Nay
Logue — Nay
Miller — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Norby — Nay
Silva — Nay
Smyth — Nay
Valadao — Nay
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Beall — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Jeffries — Nay
Mansoor — Nay
Monning — Yea
Nestande — Nay
Olsen — Not Voting
Pan — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Torres — Not Voting
Wagner — Nay
Cedillo — Not Voting
Eng — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Not Voting
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 5 Yea · 2 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4202
Democratic 1000
Total 5202
% of votes cast 56%22%0%22%
How each member voted (9)
Member Party Vote
Fuentes — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Cedillo — Not Voting
Donnelly — Nay
Beall — Yea
Nestande — Not Voting
Perea — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

taxation
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 AB 902 do?
Under existing property tax law, unpaid property taxes are declared delinquent and subject to penalties and costs, and, if the taxes remain unpaid, the property is declared tax-defaulted and subject to sale if not redeemed by the owner within a certain amount of time. Existing law requires a tax collector, in the case of the proposed tax sale of property that is the primary residence of the last known assessee, to make a reasonable effort to contact the owner-occupant of the property to be sold, as specified, and requires that the costs incurred by the tax collector in attempting to make contact, not to exceed $100, be added to the required amount for redemption of the property. This bill would remove the $100 limitation described above, and would instead require the actual and reasonable costs incurred by the tax collector in attempting to make contact to be established by the board of supervisors, as specified. Existing law requires the tax collector, when tax-defaulted property subject to a recorded notice is redeemed, to collect certain fees including, among others, a fee of $35 to reimburse the county for its costs of obtaining the names and last known mailing addresses of, and for mailing specified notices to, parties of interest, in addition to the amount required to redeem the tax-defaulted property. Existing law authorizes the tax collector, if the tax-defaulted property is redeemed prior to the proposed sale, but after the county has incurred costs to publish the notice of intended sale in a newspaper, as provided, to collect a fee to reimburse the tax collector for those costs. This bill would remove the $35 limitation described above, and would instead require the tax collector to collect a fee to reimburse the county for its actual and reasonable costs incurred in obtaining the information of, and for mailing the notices to, parties of interest. This bill would also authorize the tax collector to collect a fee to reimburse the tax collector for the costs of publishing a notice of agreement in a newspaper, as provided, under the circumstances described above. This bill would require the amount of any fee collected by the tax collector when tax-defaulted property subject to a recorded notice is redeemed to be established by the board of supervisors of a county, as provided. Existing law requires the price at which certain tax-defaulted property may be offered for sale to be the total amount necessary to redeem the property, plus costs, and prescribes the manner of distribution of proceeds from the sale of tax-defaulted property, including, among others, a distribution to the county general fund, not to exceed $35, to reimburse the county for the cost of giving of a specified notice, and a distribution to the tax collector, not to exceed $100, to reimburse the county for the costs of a personal contact, as specified. The bill would remove the $35 limitation described above, and would instead require any fee collected to reimburse the county for its actual and reasonable costs incurred in giving notice to be distributed to the county general fund. This bill would also remove the $100 limitation described above, and would instead require a distribution to the tax collector equal to the total amount of the actual and reasonable costs incurred by the tax collector in conducting the personal contact.
Who sponsors AB 902?
AB 902 is sponsored by Alejo.
What is the current status of AB 902?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 17, 2011. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 902?
Track AB 902 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 902

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 AB 902

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →