CA AB 2224
enactedCounty recorders: fees.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.
Quick answers
Did CA AB 2224 pass?
Yes. CA AB 2224 has been enacted into law. Latest recorded action (2026-09-18): Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 292, Statutes of 2026.
What is CA AB 2224 about?
Existing law establishes the office of county recorder and requires the county recorder to accept for recordation any instrument, paper, or notice that is authorized or required to be recorded, subject to the collection of specified fees. This bill would require the county recorder to provide access to a true copy of the public record for each recorded instrument, paper, or notice, as specified. By imposing new duties on county recorders, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law prohibits the fee for recording and indexing an instrument, paper, or notice from exceeding $10 for recording the first page and $3 for each additional page, which charges are to reimburse the county for the costs of services rendered. Existing law requires the county recorder to impose additional recording fees of $1 per page for nonconforming print spacing and $3 per page for nonconforming page dimensions. Existing law requires $1 of each $3 fee for each additional page to be deposited in the county general fund. The bill would, instead, set the fee for recording and indexing at $15 for recording the first page and $4 for each additional page, and would prohibit the fees from exceeding the reasonable costs of the county recorder's office for providing these services. The bill would delete the provisions requiring $1 and $3 fees for nonconforming spacing and page dimensions, and $1 of each $3 fee for each additional page to be deposited in the county general fund. The bill would require the county recorder collecting a prescribed fee to implement an electronic recording delivery system, and would provide that various other fees are restricted, as prescribed, or solely for the county recorder's office, as specified. Existing law authorizes a county recorder to charge an additional fee of $1 for specified documents requiring additional indexing based on the number of names listed and for each reference to a previously recorded document, other than the first such reference, as specified. The bill would repeal these provisions and make conforming changes. Existing law requires the fee for recording every release of lien, encumbrance, or notice executed by the state, or any municipality, county, city, district, or other political subdivision, to be a certain amount on January 1 of the year the release is recorded if the original lien, encumbrance, or notice was recorded without fee, as specified. This bill would, instead, calculate that fee as of January 1 of the year the original lien, encumbrance, or notice was recorded without fee, as specified. Upon approval by resolution of the board of supervisors and system certification by the Attorney General, existing law authorizes a county recorder to establish an electronic recording delivery system, as specified. Upon system certification, existing law authorizes a county recorder to enter into a contract with any of specified entities for the delivery for recording, and return to the party requesting recording, a digitized electronic record, as specified. Until January 1, 2027, existing law authorizes a county recorder to enter into a contract with an entity other than those specified, as described above, if certain requirements are met. This bill would remove the repeal date of January 1, 2027, and make various conforming changes. Existing law authorizes a county recorder to include in the county's electronic delivery system a secure method for accepting for recording a digital or digitized electronic record that is an instrument of reconveyance, substitution of trustee, or assignment of deed of trust. This bill would remove the limit of the above provisions to those types of documents. The bill would include related legislative findings concerning county recorders and county recorder fees. By imposing new duties on counties relative to recording fees, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors CA AB 2224?
Hadwick is the primary sponsor of CA AB 2224, joined by 1 cosponsor.
Description
Existing law establishes the office of county recorder and requires the county recorder to accept for recordation any instrument, paper, or notice that is authorized or required to be recorded, subject to the collection of specified fees. This bill would require the county recorder to provide access to a true copy of the public record for each recorded instrument, paper, or notice, as specified. By imposing new duties on county recorders, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law prohibits the fee for recording and indexing an instrument, paper, or notice from exceeding $10 for recording the first page and $3 for each additional page, which charges are to reimburse the county for the costs of services rendered. Existing law requires the county recorder to impose additional recording fees of $1 per page for nonconforming print spacing and $3 per page for nonconforming page dimensions. Existing law requires $1 of each $3 fee for each additional page to be deposited in the county general fund. The bill would, instead, set the fee for recording and indexing at $15 for recording the first page and $4 for each additional page, and would prohibit the fees from exceeding the reasonable costs of the county recorder's office for providing these services. The bill would delete the provisions requiring $1 and $3 fees for nonconforming spacing and page dimensions, and $1 of each $3 fee for each additional page to be deposited in the county general fund. The bill would require the county recorder collecting a prescribed fee to implement an electronic recording delivery system, and would provide that various other fees are restricted, as prescribed, or solely for the county recorder's office, as specified. Existing law authorizes a county recorder to charge an additional fee of $1 for specified documents requiring additional indexing based on the number of names listed and for each reference to a previously recorded document, other than the first such reference, as specified. The bill would repeal these provisions and make conforming changes. Existing law requires the fee for recording every release of lien, encumbrance, or notice executed by the state, or any municipality, county, city, district, or other political subdivision, to be a certain amount on January 1 of the year the release is recorded if the original lien, encumbrance, or notice was recorded without fee, as specified. This bill would, instead, calculate that fee as of January 1 of the year the original lien, encumbrance, or notice was recorded without fee, as specified. Upon approval by resolution of the board of supervisors and system certification by the Attorney General, existing law authorizes a county recorder to establish an electronic recording delivery system, as specified. Upon system certification, existing law authorizes a county recorder to enter into a contract with any of specified entities for the delivery for recording, and return to the party requesting recording, a digitized electronic record, as specified. Until January 1, 2027, existing law authorizes a county recorder to enter into a contract with an entity other than those specified, as described above, if certain requirements are met. This bill would remove the repeal date of January 1, 2027, and make various conforming changes. Existing law authorizes a county recorder to include in the county's electronic delivery system a secure method for accepting for recording a digital or digitized electronic record that is an instrument of reconveyance, substitution of trustee, or assignment of deed of trust. This bill would remove the limit of the above provisions to those types of documents. The bill would include related legislative findings concerning county recorders and county recorder fees. By imposing new duties on counties relative to recording fees, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
- Introduced
- 2026-04-06
- Latest action
- 2026-09-18 — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 292, Statutes of 2026.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Hadwickauthor
- Bennettcoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-09-18
Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 292, Statutes of 2026.
became-law
2026-09-18
Approved by the Governor.
executive-signature
2026-08-24
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:30 p.m.
2026-08-17
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 38. Noes 0.).
2026-08-17
In Assembly. Ordered to Engrossing and Enrolling.
2026-08-17
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 5495.).
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-06-30
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-06-29
From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2026-06-17
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (June 17). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-06-10
Referred to Com. on L. GOV.
referral-committee
2026-05-28
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2026-05-27
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 72. Noes 0.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-05-27
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 72. Noes 0. Page 5442.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-05-21
Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 5242.)
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-05-07
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-05-07
Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 4974.)
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-05-06
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 6).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-04-23
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-04-07
Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
referral-committee
2026-04-06
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. Read second time and amended.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-03-09
Referred to Com. on L. GOV.
referral-committee
2026-02-20
From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.
2026-02-19
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
Versions
- 02/19/26 - Introduced — 2026-02-19Compare
- 04/06/26 - Amended Assembly — 2026-04-06Compare
- 05/07/26 - Amended Assembly — 2026-05-07Compare
- 05/21/26 - Amended Assembly — 2026-05-21Compare
- 08/19/26 - Enrolled — 2026-08-19Compare
- 09/18/26 - Chaptered — 2026-09-18Compare
- (document, no version)Compare
- AB2224Compare
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2026-04-22 · pass · 9-0
Member-level votes (10)
- Carrillo: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Ward: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Johnson: yes
- Ta: other
Do pass.
2026-05-06 · pass · 14-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Solache: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Fong: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Ta: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Krell: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Arambula: other
AB 2224 Hadwick Assembly Third Reading
2026-05-27 · pass · 72-0
Member-level votes (80)
- Bennett: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Davies: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Papan: yes
- Fong: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Hart: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Addis: yes
- Bains: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Johnson: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Ward: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Flora: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Chen: yes
- Soria: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Ellis: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Berman: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Haney: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Krell: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Castillo: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Gallagher: yes
- Solache: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Muratsuchi: yes
- Macedo: other
- DeMaio: other
- Celeste Rodriguez: other
- Patel: other
- Lee: other
- Jackson: other
- Sanchez: other
- Ta: other
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2026-06-17 · pass · 6-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Arreguín: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Choi: yes
- Cervantes: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Laird: yes
- Ashby: other
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_api_sync, retrieved 2026-09-21T02:53:48.612860Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 2224. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.