Posted by Marian_in_CA on 4/8/13 7:10pm
Msg #464994

CA Notaries... another ridiculous bill increasing our costs?

The NNA sent a blast about this. Apparently, there's a hearing on it tomorrow.

It's poorly worded, but what this means is that this bill would tack on $75 to EVERY recordable document... and that includes our notary bonds. Yes, that means ANOTHER $75 we'd have to pay in addition to the regular recording fees for our bond.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_391_bill_20130402_amended_sen_v98.html

And, as it is written right now, the only exemption to the fee is:

"The fee described... shall not be imposed on any real estate instrument, paper, or notice recorded in connection with a transfer subject to the imposition of a documentary transfer tax as defined in Section 11911 of the Revenue and Taxation Code."


When I first read this, I thought it was only for recordable documents related to real estate. Apparently, that's not the case... it's for EVERY recorded document. I wonder though, if they meant every document, why not just say that, instead of preface the list of document with the phrase "real estate" as it is now?



Per the NNA, "We need your help. Tomorrow, the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee will meet at 1:30 p.m. to consider SB 391. We are asking you to write Senator Mark DeSaulnier, Chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, or Senator Ted Gaines, Vice Chair, and let them know that you are opposed to SB 391."


Email contact forms:

Senator Mark DeSaulnier, Chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
https://lcmspubcontact.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/ContactPopup.php?district=SD07

Senator Ted Gaines, Vice Chair
[e-mail address]

Reply by dgd/CA on 4/8/13 7:32pm
Msg #465001

OMG...the most needy.. and US n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/8/13 7:50pm
Msg #465005

BTW... this is the website put up by those wanting it to pass:

http://www.californiahomesandjobsact.org/

If you go there... you'll see that it is *VERY* vague about how the money will be raised. That leads me to think that they really do intend on taking on the fee to ALL recordable documents, not just real estate related ones.

It seems that *is* the case. Reference this letter from the VP of CRAC:

http://yubanet.com/regional/Op-Ed-Greg-Diaz-Oppose-SB-391-California-Homes-and-Jobs-Act.php#.UWNlc1eO2S0

Reply by JerryhFL on 4/8/13 9:29pm
Msg #465016

It appears that California has taken their cue from the British Empire by proposing a new version of The Stamp Act of 1765.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 4/8/13 11:27pm
Msg #465030

Gut shot: "...any real estate instrument, paper, or

notice *recorded* (emphasis mine) means it has to be recorded to be exempt.

But - "...in connection with a transfer subject to the imposition of a documentary transfer tax as defined in Section 11911 of the Revenue and Taxation Code." That applies a limitation, doesn't it? Unless all transfers are subject to a "documentary transfer tax?" A notary bond wouldn't qualify, correct? The Bond is not dependent upon any limitation, correct?

The SOS's requirement to record your Bonds has zero nexus to any particular transfer of property's recording requirements that I can see. jmho

Reply by Teebs on 4/9/13 5:30pm
Msg #465108

I tried to email that particular senator, and was told I was in the wrong district and that I needed to email someone from my district... I will try and find another avenue to file my objection....

Reply by LKT/CA on 4/9/13 6:22pm
Msg #465117

When I received my first commission, it cost $48 to file my bond (San Bernardino County). Four years later when I renewed, it cost $86 (San Bernardino County). When I renew for the third time, (add $75) the total will be $161 ??? While I don't like that number.....I'll pay it. Fewer companies will have office notaries, the current ones won't renew, and there will be fewer mobile notaries. That means I (mobile notary) will be in greater demand.....works for me!!!!