AVIER BECERRA Attorney General
ANYA M. BINSACCA Deputy Attorney General
AGO 18-303
No. 18-303
California Attorney General Opinion
Office of the Attorney General State of California
August 23, 2019
THE
HONORABLE RICHARD ROTH, MEMBER OF THE STATE SENATE, has
requested an opinion on the following question:
Government
Code section 27388.1, a statute within the Building Homes and
Jobs Act, imposes a $75 fee for recording various real estate
documents. Is a “record of survey,” as described
in the Professional Land Surveyors’ Act, subject to
this fee?
CONCLUSION
Yes. A
record of survey is subject to the $75 recording fee required
by Government Code section 27388.1, unless an exception set
forth in that statute applies.
ANALYSIS
Government
Code section 27388.1 imposes a new recording fee on real
estate documents. The purpose of the new fees is to
“establish a permanent, ongoing source or sources of
funding dedicated to affordable housing
development.”1
Section
27388.1 provides that, as of January 1, 2018, an extra fee of
$75 must be paid “at the time of recording of every
real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or
permitted by law to be recorded, except those expressly
exempted . . . .”2 We have been asked for our opinion
whether a record of survey is subject to the new fee. In
order to answer the question, we must consider whether a
record of survey is the kind of document that was meant to be
included in the new rule.
The
Professional Land Surveyors’ Act[3] provides that records
of survey may be filed with the county surveyor in certain
circumstances,4 and must be filed with the county
surveyor in others.5 In either case, the county surveyor
must then “present [the record of survey] to the county
recorder for filing.”6 Thus, a record of survey
is “permitted by law to be recorded,” and whether
it is subject to section 27388.1’s fee requirement
turns on whether a record of survey is a “real estate
instrument, paper, or notice.” For the reasons that
follow, we conclude that it is.
The
“first task in construing a statute is to ascertain the
intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of
the law. In determining such intent, [we] must look first to
the words of the statute themselves, giving to the language
its usual, ordinary import and according significance, if
possible, to every word, phrase and sentence in pursuance of
the legislative purpose.”7 If the statutory language
is clear, we “follow its plain meaning unless a literal
interpretation would result in absurd consequences the
Legislature did not intend.”8On the other hand...
