An act to amend Sections 6103.8, 7171, 7174, 27201, 27361, 27361.3, 27388.2, and 27397.5 of, to amend and repeal Sections 27391 and 27393 of, and to repeal Sections 27361.2 and 27361.8 of, the Government Code, relating to local government.
AB 2224 revises California law governing county recorder operations, with a focus on recording fees, electronic recording, and public access to recorded documents. The bill would increase the base fee for recording and indexing documents from $10 for the first page and $3 for each additional page to $15 and $4, respectively, while capping those fees at the reasonable costs of the recorder’s office. It also eliminates several older fee provisions, including charges tied to nonconforming document formatting and certain additional indexing fees, and it revises how some government lien-release fees are calculated.
The bill would also require county recorders who collect the prescribed recording fee to implement an electronic recording delivery system by January 1, 2028, expand the types of documents that may be handled through electronic recording, and remove a sunset date that currently limits some electronic submission authority. In addition, it requires county recorders to provide access to a true copy of the public record for each recorded instrument, and it makes conforming changes to statutes governing state tax liens, releases of liens, and related electronic filing procedures.
AB 2224 would amend multiple Government Code provisions affecting county recorder fee schedules, document acceptance standards, and electronic recording authority. It would repeal two existing fee-related sections, revise fee restrictions and dedicated-use provisions, and update the treatment of releases of liens and notices recorded by public agencies. Counties would be required to implement or expand electronic recording delivery systems, and the Attorney General’s oversight role for those systems would be adjusted by removing certain repealed provisions and broadening the scope of acceptable electronic submissions. The bill also imposes a state-mandated local program on counties, while declaring that no reimbursement is required because local agencies may recover costs through fees and charges.
The available vote history suggests the bill has generally favorable support in committee. It passed the relevant committee 9-0 on a do-pass motion and was ordered to the Committee on Appropriations, indicating no recorded opposition at that stage. The bill’s findings frame the changes as modernization and transparency measures intended to improve public access, streamline recording, and support county recorder operations.
The main policy tension in AB 2224 is between modernization and cost. Supportive provisions emphasize electronic recording, standardized fees, and reduced rejection rates, while the fee increases and new operational mandates could raise concerns for property owners, title companies, and other frequent users of recorder services. Another possible point of contention is the bill’s requirement that counties implement electronic recording systems and provide true copies of public records without state reimbursement, which could be viewed as shifting implementation costs to local governments even as the bill asserts that fees can cover them. The bill also changes several existing fee exemptions and dedicated-fund rules, which may draw scrutiny from counties and stakeholders concerned about revenue allocation and administrative burden.