Michael Belote, Esq.
By Michael Belote, Esq., California Advocates, UTA California Lobbyist
January 4, 2016 commenced the second year of the current 2015-2016 two-year session of the California Legislature. Equal to the certainty of death and taxes is the reliability that the Assembly and Senate will introduce a very large number of bills to make all of our lives better. This year approximately 2400 new bills were introduced on or before the February 19 deadline; as an association, we take the position that this is far too many bills, except for … the two bills we caused to be introduced!
Already the bills have been read and evaluated for potential impact on trustees. More than 25 have been preliminary identified of interest to UTA, but the evaluation process never ends, because bills which were of no interest can later, and suddenly, be amended to pose a problem for our industry. No one can truly rest until the Legislature adjourns at midnight, August 31, 2016.
Beyond the bills of direct interest to UTA, a reading of all 2,400 reveals some common themes. One recurring issue addressed by the bills concerns privacy. Whether the context is personal privacy, medical privacy, financial privacy, or some other context, the Legislature remains vitally interested in consumer privacy, and sometimes with conflicting policies. At the same time, for example, that many bills propose greater privacy protections, another would require “de-encryption” of electronic devices to aid law enforcement.
A second major issue relates to arbitration. Last year Governor Brown vetoed an exceedingly controversial bill relating to arbitration in employment. Almost immediately thereafter, the New York Times published a three-part series largely excoriating arbitration, and soon after that the United States Supreme Court once again issued a ruling strongly applying the doctrine of federal preemption in striking down a state law limiting consumer arbitrations. This will once again be a hotly contested issue in Sacramento.
For UTA, two bills were introduced under the sponsorship of the association. The first is SB 918 (Vidak), which once again is intended to address the problem of failed service of process in HOA assessment lien foreclosures. UTA has had productive dialogue with groups speaking for unit owners, and we remain hopeful that a responsible solution to the problem can be identified and enacted.
The second UTA bill is SB 983 (Morrell). As introduced, the bill makes largely technical corrections to current law, including clarifying changes to the “Notice to Bidders” included in Civil Code Section 2924f, and changes to Civil Code Section 2923.3 to require that trustors be given copies of notices of default and sale “indicating the recording date” rather than the actual recorded documents. As the bill proceeds, UTA plans to amend SB 983 to address the definition of “owner” in sections relating to maintenance of foreclosed properties, and to seek minor increases in trustee’s fees, which have not been increased in California for 15 years.
A third bill of very significant interest to UTA and lender groups is SB 1150. Similar in spirit to a bill introduced last year, this year’s bill would essentially apply the provisions of the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights to successors in interest of trustors where successors are not parties to the loans or promissory notes. Lenders and servicers would be required to follow the same procedures as HOBR prior to recording notices of default in circumstances where successors produce evidence that trustors have died.
Other bills introduced for 2016 cover a wide variety of topics, including electronic recording of documents, notary procedures, escheat, and more. Your UTA leadership works very hard to represent the interests of trustees in California; stay tuned for updates as the legislative year progresses.