California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB255

Introduced
2/3/25  
Refer
2/14/25  
Refer
3/24/25  
Report Pass
4/3/25  
Refer
4/3/25  
Report Pass
4/23/25  
Report Pass
4/3/25  
Refer
4/23/25  
Refer
4/3/25  
Report Pass
4/23/25  
Engrossed
5/8/25  
Refer
4/23/25  
Refer
5/29/25  
Engrossed
5/8/25  
Refer
6/9/25  
Report Pass
6/18/25  
Refer
6/18/25  
Report Pass
6/24/25  
Refer
6/24/25  
Report Pass
7/9/25  

Caption

County recorders: notification.

Impact

The bill is expected to standardize practices across the state regarding property recordation notifications and impose new operational responsibilities on county recorders. The requirement for counties to adopt an authorizing resolution to implement this program may encourage uniformity in how property records are processed and communicated to parties involved. The legislative mandate includes provisions for counties to collect fees to cover the costs associated with creating this notification system, with a maximum set at reasonable service costs to the county. Hence, the financial implications on local government budgets are a potential consideration.

Summary

Senate Bill 255, introduced by Senator Seyarto, seeks to amend the Government Code by adding a requirement for counties in California to establish a recorder notification program by January 1, 2027. This initiative mandates that upon the recordation of a deed, quitclaim deed, mortgage, or deed of trust, county recorders must notify the parties involved via mail within 30 days. The notification is aimed at improving transparency and ensuring that relevant stakeholders are informed about property transactions. Additionally, an electronic notification option may be established as part of this program, reflecting a modern approach to property record management.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 255 appears to be supportive among those who advocate for enhanced communication and transparency in property transactions. Proponents argue that such a measure will protect property owners and stakeholders by ensuring they are promptly informed of important actions concerning recorded documents. However, concerns may arise regarding the financial burden on counties and the feasibility of implementing electronic notification systems, which could lead to discussions about costs and the administrative capacity of local governments.

Contention

Notably, SB 255 generates some contention regarding the responsibilities it imposes on county officials. While it is designed to promote efficiency and transparency, there may be arguments related to the adequacy of resources in counties to handle these new duties. Additionally, the bill creates exemptions from the notification requirements for specific document types where a government entity is the grantee, which could lead to questions about fairness and accountability in the property notification processes. Furthermore, the provision allowing the collection of fees for these services may also draw scrutiny regarding its practicality and impact on property owners.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA AB300

Notaries public: notification of death: delivery of notarial records and papers.

CA AB2915

Voter notifications.

CA AB313

Corrections: notifications.

CA SB458

Public contracts: Local Agency Public Construction Act: reporting and notifications.

CA SB850

Courts: notification system.

CA AB2980

Fictitious business names: county recorder: statements: blockchain technology.

CA SB691

Pupil attendance: truancy notifications.

CA AB1193

Real property: property records: personal identifying information.

CA AB430

Community land trusts: welfare exemption: assessment: foreclosure sales: financial assistance.

CA SB255

Courts: notification system.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.